Messina,+Steven

I am a former LD debate competitor that has been judging and coaching LD and PF for 3 years at Mercyhurst Preparatory High School in Erie, PA

Since this is typically the first thing that debaters ask about, this is what I will address first. My speed preferences are simple: as long as I can understand what you are saying, I can judge you. Just be aware that the faster you go, the less likely I will be to write everything down, but I have confidence that I will be able to judge you fairly. Never sacrifice clarity for speed.
 * Speed Preferences**

I consider myself traditional in terms of style, but I can obviously accept more modern tactics. Basically, I was a traditional competitor, but I accept all styles when I judge. LD debaters should always have a value and value criterion when they debate. Evidence is important, though not as important as logical frameworks and arguments. Kritiks are acceptable, though they have to be well qualified. Straight refutation on the NEG is also acceptable, although it should be paired with a basic value premise and criterion to frame the NEG attacks.
 * Style Preferences**

Basically, I will default to the value debate as my major criterion for round evaluation. That is, unless the debaters present a more important standard for me to judge on, I will judge the value debate as the most important aspect in the round. //Key voting issues are a must!// I'm not saying that you will definitely lose a round without key voting issues, just that they seriously help me and your opponent understand the debate. Debates should be educational and should promote intelligent arguments. If your opponent and your judge do not understand the perspective you offer in its entirety, this cannot be accomplished.
 * Judging Criteria**

To win the round, debaters need to logically win the value debate and the majority of the points offered in his/her case. Debaters must also, to complete their burden of clash, win the majority of arguments that they have posed against their opponents' cases. I will only judge what is said in the round between the debaters. If a debater says something ludicrous or historically inaccurate, I will definitely write it in on the ballot as a non voting issue (NVI). In cases where debaters cite something grossly inaccurate, I may dock speaking points. However, if the opponent does not point out the inaccuracy of the claim, I will never give a loss based solely on inaccurate information.

Debaters always bear somewhat of an obligation of proof. Thought it is not paramount to the obligation of clash, debaters must be able to qualify the claims that they make, especially when they are crucial points in the round. Acceptable evidence cards include: statistics, exert testimonies, public opinion polls, direct quotes, etc. Using this material is a must when making major points to support your case. Debaters must be able to supply visible copies of evidence to opponents or judges if asked to do so. Not doing so could result in a vote down. Refer to "Judging Criteria" for additional explanation here.
 * Evidence Preferences**

I look forward to intelligent, thought-provoking, and reasonable debates from all students.