Connelly,+Louis

I did LD in high school for four years, and I have judged a little since then. My experience is thus much more than the typical parent but less than an experience debate coach or someone who has been judging for 10 years.

Speed: Not a good idea. I don't mind a brisk cantor, but that is pushing the limit. Also if you are organized with Claim, then Warrant, then Impacts, then I will be able to follow you much much more. If you are the type of debater that has one argument in the tag line and then just a bunch more claims that you think support that first claim, or just a bunch of sentences without any organization, you better go slower because I wont be able to follow the logic (if there even is any logic which there probably isn't).

Extending arguments: When an opponent drops your point or makes an argument against it that is just bad or doesn’t make sense--extend that shit. BUT you can't just say "please extend this argument across the flow." You have to say more. You need additional analysis or explanation, link to your criterion and value, and IMPACT. Why is that argument important? Note: If you ever are thinking of saying "my opponent has to prove such and such in ALL cases as her burden" that is probably a bad idea. You never are going to be able to prove anything 100% so don’t tell me your opponent has to, that is bad news.

Cross Examination: This is a QUESTION period. That mean's DON'T make arguments. Also, if you answer questions unreasonably, that will make me really not want to vote for you. I cannot stand it when people answer simple questions stupidly because they think they are somehow like avoiding some argument. When answering questions, answer them correctly. Don't worry about trying to defend your case (this isn't to say throw your case out the window, I just mean be reasonable). When they make an argument based on your answer, just make your counter argument. DONT try to guess where they are going with the arguments and find fault with their conclusion (which you don't even know yet), just answer the question and argue about it in the rebuttals. Also (side note) its just a bad idea in general to be like "well doesn’t this and this prove the aff side right?" because your opponent will probably just say no.

Value: For me the value is the goal of the resolution. Make sure you tell me why you think that your value is the goal of the resolution. Don't tell me your opponents value is invalid because its redundant based on the fact that it is obvious that the resolution is looking for something. That is wrong. The value should be obvious simple and you should be able to defend why you think it is the goal of the resolution. You and your opponent hopefully should agree on a value.

Criterion: This is how to tell if our arguments lead to the value. If you don't link your arguments to your criterion (or your opponents) then I might as well be sleeping. If your criterion is something like "minimizing harms" you need to say how each of your arguments shows that the aff/neg is minimizing harms and thus how each argument leads your or your opponent’s value.

Aff: Don't bring up evidence in the 1 AR, Don't bring up completely new arguments in the 2 AR. Neg: You shouldn't bring up and new evidence in your 2 NR and if you dropped something in your first speech don't try to then debate it again head on. You might be able to say "even though I dropped it she never linked it to her criterion so it doesn't matter" that’s ok, but don't bring up a new argument when you dropped something.

Crystilization: Very important. You must tell me why I should vote for you. Pick a few points you think you’re winning, tell me why, if they are true, they prove your value through your criterion. DON'T have the value or criterion be a voting issue, it automatically is.

Don't be dumb: I expect kindness, politeness, and all around good natured debate. Debate is a fun thing, not a chore. If your opponent says something that you don't agree with, don't make a face. Don't look bothered, or shake your head. Just sit there and let me decide if I agree with it.

Speaker points: I award speaker points based on your arguments not your actual delivery. If you don't give me more or less eye contact, I don't care. However, you still need to speak well. I don't mean like practicing for a political speech with dramatic pauses and shit like that. I mean don't say "like" every other word. Don't say "ummm" during your speeches. Stuff like that is bad. Other than that I care much more about organization, linking to your criterion, all the stuff I mentioned before. For me its really hard to get a low point win because even if you are making decent points, if they are really unorganized, you are speaking poorly, and too fast, I wont vote for you. Most important thing I would say is that I can understand you and follow your line of thinking.

Road maps: Don't need them, don't like them. They are only useful if you are doing something weird and crazy, and you shouldn't be doing something weird and crazy, so there you go.

Signposting: Pretty important. If you don't tell me where you are, then I may or may not be able to figure it out. If you tell me "he said in sub point C of his second contention blah blah... however... blah blah" that is good. I will like that and you will much more likely win the round.

Good luck,

P.S. I never did some of the crazy shit you debaters are doing like Kritiques and Topicality and stuff. That doesn't mean I can't handle them, just make sure you really explain it extra carefully. I would advise you against doing it because simpler is usually better, but obviously if this is five minutes before your round you can't write a whole new case. If you have any questions fell free to e-mail me louiscon@gmail.com