Cone,Stephanie

I am //traditional// LD. I am from Palm Beach County where LD is very traditional, Dale McCall taught my coach. I did LD in high school and even though now I am a member of the policy debate team, I do not want to see //policy// LD. What does this mean? It means no spreading, if you have to tag your arguments aka slow down for the general idea or topic line then you are way too fast. That being said, I do not mind talking fast as long as you stay persuasive and do not //spread//. There is a different between excited passionate speed and spreading, if you are worried about how fast you are talking then it is probably too fast. That being said I also do not want to hear public forum/policy arguments. For example don’t ask is CX “where is your fact/card that says that?” ask instead “why should we value this idea?”. LD is not about facts and figures it is about logic and philosophy. Data can support an argument but fact heavy cases with low philosophy will not be looked upon favorably. I am a **flow judge** so **please //__sign post__//** It will make it easier for me as a judge and make sure that I don’t miss anything you say so false extensions can’t take place. I also tend to look to you as to what the affirmative job or burden is and the negative job or burden, these are part of my flow. If you don’t establish these then generally I default on whether the resolution is true or false. Value Debate: Values are an important part of LD but my biggest pet peeve even before the spreading and fact issue is when people are arguing when they have essentially the same value. For example Justice v. Societal Welfare these can be different however when both debaters simply desire a better world and make no distinction- then waste most of the debate about which is a good thing I get very annoyed. I don’t want to hear you spend most of your speech debating values when you make no distinction and are just trying to achieve a “good world” so if you’re not going to make a remarkable distinction then move on, say “me and my opponent are both trying to achieve a better world, safe world but my opponent doesn’t/can’t or this is how you do it with a vc of”, I don’t care exactly how you do it or move just do. Don’t waste time in the debate where no debate exists. Value Criterions: This is where most of the debate happens for me as far as framework goes. Value criterions are the means to achieve the better world and this is often where debaters differ significantly. I’m not going to tell you how to debate just know that this is an important part of the debate. Contentions: Give logical reasoning as support as well as examples to support and explain that logic. Facts can be given but should not be the core. I also am not a huge fan of moral relativism in the framework. If you are going to run it you better understand it very very well because it is a strange arguments for a weighing mechanism since it doesn’t really provide a method to weigh. It is a very philosophical argument and if you don’t understand it chances are you won’t convince me of it. I judge off framework so whoever is winning framework will likely win the debate because then whichever side achieves that framework better with their contentions and “created world” will win. In determining this I look for the reason and logic stated to prefer one over the other and of course the flow of argumentation. Extensions and turns are good, but please explain and impact. If you don’t impact then sure you’ve extended or turned a point but it doesn’t mean anything. I am not going to do the work or assume things for the debate- you tell me why it matters or it doesn’t and you just wasted time extending or turning something just for the sake of an arrow being on the flow but with no meaning. I have nothing against theory but if someone is not abusive don’t blindly run theory. I am not going to vote off theory unless it is clear someone is being abusive. I will flow new arguments but mark them as new on my flow. If your opponent doesn’t point this our good for you, this means if you are the opponent point it out. New arguments are abusive that being said an argument that develops in the rounds is not new. This is hard to clearly define because it is round specific so to be safe mention the argument is new but say “X argument is new and that’s abusive but it’s still invalid/bad because….” You can give a quick reason; it is better to respond. However if you don’t find you have time then I will evaluate the “newness” so it’s really up to you and your confidence on whether its new and how long you want to spend on it.

DO NOT LIE, KNOW YOUR PHILSOPHERS AND DON’T BE RUDE. If you lie I will know. Don’t do it.