Yurko,+William

I am Junior, currently debating my third year of LD for William T Dwyer high school.

What I don't like:

Spreading: Don't. If you speak so fast it sounds like you are hyperventilating/drowning/sobbing I reserve the right to call an ambulance, and/or recommend you check yourself into a mental institution. Worse yet, if you spread then finish your speech early, you should have been dealt with by Darwinian natural selection. Persuade me through rhetoric and logical argument, not through spreading or even speaking quickly.

Progressive arguments: I'll judge any argument, but most progressive arguments are stupid and overly-complex. So while I judge and give weight to your arguments, I likely won't give them as much weight as you would like. If you want to use progressive arguments, I would prefer if you didn't use the uptight and unnecessary policy format (link interpretation violation etc), just explain to me your position logically.

Plans: Firstly, plans don't constitute an argument, so I will give them little weight in the round. Don't use a plan or counter-plan, it is highly likely I will go out of my way to actively vote against it.

Policy jargon: Don't use words like "disads" "inherency" "solvency" etc. I could care less, but if you feel inclined to use such words, I hear public forum and policy debate are quite fun for that kind of thing.

Utilitarianism: If you use Util your probably boring and a sheep, if you attack Util (well) you're good and interesting, if you can defend Util (against good attacks) you are smart and I like you. Don't use Util just to give arguments more ethical legitimacy, Util is heavily flawed and overused, don't use it unless you bloody know what you are talking about.

Toulmin argument model: I don't care about the claim warrant impact model. If you tell me to extend a "warrant", I guarantee it won't be extended. Make your arguments logical, clear and persuasive, how you go about doing that is your choice.

What I like:

Framework debates: A case without a standing/good framework is like a compass that doesn't point north, not matter how beautiful it is, it is bloody useless. Your framework is what gives your case ethical weight, however if you have no decent contentions then your framework has nothing to give weight to. If you can demolish your opponent's framework, you needn't attack their contentions, if you can demolish their contentions (all contentions in their entirety) then you needn't attack framework. To play it safe you should try and do both though.

Philosophy and logic: To be able to win a debate in LD you needn't use any statistical or empirical evidence. In fact I prefer arguments that based solely in logic and philosophy rather than pseudo-philosophy and evidence. Often evidence is necessary only to back up a consequentialist position, and consequentialism is a wholly unnecessary to win. If you use any normative ethical theory I expect you to know it very well. If you use a theory and use it incorrectly (unless you specify it's your own interpretation) I will likely drop you in the round, merely for your ignorance.

Humour: If you are funny then it is one more reason for me to vote for you, it is a weak reason, but a reason nonetheless.

Any reference to, or usage of: House of Cards (British or American version), Game of Thrones, any band from the British Invasion, the Arctic Monkeys, Goodfellas, poetry, a Batman voice (it must be good and somewhat logical in your speech).