Levine,+Sunny

Former LDer for Medina High School, and now a freshman at Harvard. I currently mentor and judge LD (for my high school) and Spanish-language policy debate (for the Boston Debate League). I'm most comfortable with traditional debate rounds, but am OK to judge progressive debaters, so long as the round remains LD and not policy. The most important thing is that your debates stay respectful- this is a fun activity and a learning experience first, and a competition second.

Framework: Always comes first. Both debaters must have a value and criterion. The "winning" framework becomes the standard for the round and how I evaluate arguments, but doesn't guarantee that the debater whose case it belongs to wins. Framework must be relevant to the resolution and should also connect very clearly to your contention-level arguments.

Argumentation: Your arguments should be clear and concise. I will listen to anything so long as you explain it well- don't assume that I am already familiar with the intricacies of the obscure philosophy you're using. If you are running progressive arguments, treat me as a tabula rasa judge. Make sure your arguments are well-supported and link clearly to your framework as well as the resolution. Evidence is only important in the context of an argument, and will rarely win or lose you the debate on its own. (I probably won't care about one dropped card in subpoint F if you've solidly discredited the argument as a whole).

Speed/Speaking: Usually not an issue, as long as you don't spread and are willing to slow down for key evidence and tags. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know. I most enjoy judging debaters with slower, more expressive speaking styles, and tend to give them higher speaks.

tl;dr: Be nice. Debate the resolution. Conversational, traditional debate is my favorite to watch. No new stuff in the 2AR. Have fun!