Aydjian,+Kathleen

Here's what I expect from debaters that I judge.


 * Lincoln-Douglas**

First of all, all argumentation is fair game. I don't believe that any sort of case should be "forbidden" as long as it is justified, linked, and run properly. Try to avoid spreading. If I can't flow it, it won't be factored into the round.

I do not come into a round with set expectations. What I judge on depends entirely on you. Voting issues, weighing mechanisms, and relevant value clash are all highly important towards deciding a round. Prioritize them!

Theory is fine as long as it's clear. Muddled theory shells do nothing but waste our time. At least be clear.

I default to net benefits if not given an alternative way to weigh the round. However, I much prefer to judge the round based on what you as the debaters tell me are the most relevant points. This is especially relevant for morality cases: if you're not debating on a tangible, net benefits paradigm, you need to tell me, as the judge, to vote along those lines!

Finally, don't forget IMPACTS! If you don't give me impacts, your case is inherently weak. Make me care about the position you're taking.


 * Parliamentary**

Parliamentary debate is a test of debating skill and your ability to string together your own coherent arguments. As such, I don't want to see an overabundance of evidence. Evidence is important in policy-oriented topics for establishing backing for your claims, but I do not want to see evidence do the debating for you.

Spreading is never acceptable under any circumstances in High School Parliamentary debate. You do not have a high evidence burden, so I want clarity.

I am a Tabula Rasa judge, and am open to anything you want to run, as long as you can convince me it is a winning argument. Performance cases, theoreticals, and kritiks are all welcome as long as the case is well made and easy to understand.

If you are running a policy case, the Aff needs to be organized. This includes a plan and advantages. As for the Neg, counterplans must be competitive and disads must be linked. I expect impact calculus from both sides.

If you are running a value case, the Aff needs to propose a value on which to judge the round, and must convince me that their advocacy meets that value.

I understand that sometimes, loose-linked topics will show up in Parliamentary rounds. I tend to give the Aff leeway in establishing framework in these rounds. Rather than accusing the Aff of being unpredictable, I would rather see the neg either debate under the proposed framework, or give me a competing interpretation of the resolution and convince me to accept your framework.

Remember, debate is all about growing as a communicator and as a thinker. But most of all, don't forget to have fun!