Bakken,+Alison

I am a traditional LD judge. I prefer a strong value criteria debate. Contentions should support the link between your value criterion and the resolution. I vote first on the value criteria debate and second on the contention debate. I love strong philosophical debates. LD is not policy or public forum. While the use of evidence is occasionally helpful, theoretical philosophical analysis is the best. Voting: I walk into the room with a clear mind and conscious regardless of your previous performance. I recognize that I may have a personal preference for one side over the other. I will not use my own preference against the debate. Ballots: I will never tell you exactly what you should've said to win the debate. Instead, I will direct you to a particular part of your flow. I believe students learn better when they have to determine their own faults. Also, it isn't fair for me to argue for the students at the end of the round. I don't want to give anyone a particular advantage over anyone else. As a result, my ballots are often vague with the exception of specific areas of the flow to examine. Also, I fill out my ballots as the round progresses. It is possible that I will note something that you end up answering during the debate. Rest assured, while I may not have noted on the ballot that I got it, it is likely on my flow if it was important enough for me to comment about on the ballot. Prep time: I will always give 30 second signals during prep time. There is no need to ask. Prep time, unless otherwise noted by tournament officials, will begin once you are seated. Case structure: I am fine with subpoints in contentions. However, if you choose to use subpoints, they should belong under the main point. A random grouping of contentions does nothing for the flow of the debate. I am not a fan of more than three subpoints under each contention. I flow as much of the debate as I feel I need to. On closer debates, I flow word for word in cross-x. Speed: Regardless of the type of debate, if I can't write fast enough to flow it, it is likely I won't be voting on it in the round. I prefer conversation paced speaking. Overloading your opponent with as many contentions as you can shows me that your case is too disconnected from the resolution. Electronics: With the overwhelming presence of electronics in our world, it is increasingly common to see students with laptops in the debate. While I am resistant to this change, I am in no way opposed to the use of laptops in the round so long as students can speak clearly when delivering their speech. Additionally, I encourage students to time their own speeches during the debate so as to allot an appropriate amount of time to each of the burdens in a particular speech. I do allow the use of cell phones as timers. However, if I see you doing anything on your phone that isn't related to the timer, you will receive an automatic loss. With the ability of cell phones to access the Internet, it gives students an unfair advantage. Phones need to be on silent, not vibrate. Cross-x: Use your cross-x time wisely. Make sure you know where your questions are going. Do not be abusive during cross-x and do not let your opponent take over by adding more information than necessary to answer your question. Be courteous when you have to interrupt them to move on. Also, I don't need to hear examples of racial slurs. Courtesy: Please be kind to each other and your judges in the round. Some tournaments require more formality than others. Recognize that all of us are there for you. It is paramount that students feel comfortable in the debate and always learn something from each round. Debates are so much better when students are relaxed and comfortable. (It's easier said than done.)