Liebler,+Anna

Speed is fine, though it is quite crucial that I can catch what you are saying. This means clarity on tags, analytics, and theory.
====Run what you are most comfortable with; Substantive and valuable debates tend to happen when you know what you're arguing, not just what you think I'd like. ==== //Claim, warrant, impact structure is paramount. // Setting up any argument in this structure is going to do a lot for you.

Clash is really important; engage with the substance of the debate.
====Discriminatory language or actions won't be tolerated and will be reflected in my facial expressions, your speaker points, and potentially the ballot. ==== ====I am fine with Kritiks as long as you understand and articulate them clearly. Throwing around a lot of high level academic jargon doesn't convince me you're right. ====

Policy

Topicality Round specific argumentation can go a long way here. Framing is increasingly forgotten but it important for evaluating. Please provide Competing interpretations/reasonability debate. Don't allow unnecessary judge intervention either way. Slower on this section since it tends to be primarily analysis and not just cards. If running multiple Ts, don't cross apply too heavily. If each argument is truly a legitimate strategy, treat it like one.

Kritiks/Performance I've had limited experience with performance debate, but am more than willing to evaluate them. Please invest time in explaining the relevance, my role, role of the ballot, etc. As in the general notes section, showing me you actually know your argument comes from the ability to explain it to someone who does not know it to the depth you do. If you don't/can't explain it without all the buzzwords, you might not actually know it. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Specific links from their evidence will go a long way on the link debate.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Theory <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Keeping all theory on a separate flow is increasingly a good idea. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I don't care for theory debates and would really prefer to not have a round come down to it, but sometimes it does happen. If it does, please invest time in making it something worth voting for. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I believe in reciprocity, so if a team creates a performative contradiction, I have a much higher threshold for evaluating severance perms.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Counterplans <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The more specific it can be, the better. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Keeping Net Benefits separate is helpful. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am open to a lot here as long as it is warranted.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Disadvantages <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Explaining how it functions as the scenario is helpful, especially on politics.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case debates are underrated. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If you spend time actually dissecting their case and indicting evidence, it will get you further on my flow. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Engaging with what is typically the starting point of the debate is intuitive, or at least it should be.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cross-Ex <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is binding. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Tag team/open cross ex is overall fine with me. Using the entirety of your partner's time for your own questions OR answering all the questions for your partner are reflected in the speaker points for each of you. You're a team, not a tool.

Oral Critiques I am willing to give this after every round. I will not tolerate being argued with about my decision. Making your points after the ballot doesn't change it for me. Do the better argumentation in round.

_

Public Forum Using the framing terms in the resolution as a key element of your case/analysis (i.e., on balance, outweigh, prioritize) is a worthwhile investment. Time should be spent extending your own case. Don't leave it behind when you get to rebuttals. Final focus should be a reasonable balance between both why you won and why they lost. This needs to include WHY this means you won the round. _ Lincoln Douglas Value/Value Criterion Debates are very important to me. Philosophies should be explained and understandable. Explaining how each contention and the v/vc links to each other is important. Interacting with the opponent's framing is also very important. Providing analysis of how you subsume/access in-roads to theirs (and not just asserting that you do) will get you far. KVIs are worthwhile but necessary. _

Feel free to email me aliebler@kent.edu or ask questions before the round.