Fisher,+Matthew

I was an LD debater at St. Louis Park High School and have been judging on the local circuit since then.

When adjudicating the round, you're free to run whatever arguments you like so long as they're warranted and impact to some sort of decision calculus. It doesn't really bother me whether it's a 'traditional' value/criterion framework, a standard, or a burden; just tell me what your argument is, why it matters, and how it impacts my ballot. Please don't just extend arguments for no reason -- tell me how it's relevant to my decision and how it wins you the round.
 * Paradigm**

If you're speaking too quickly and/or if you're incomprehensible, then I will stop flowing. I may yell clear, but you should watch how I'm receiving your arguments. I prefer if debaters speak at a pace slightly faster than conversational pace. Every time I've seen debaters speak quickly the substance of the debate gets lost in irrelevant and blippy line-by-line minutia.

The framework debate is crucial. What arguments are excluded under your framework? What arguments are relevant under your framework? Answer these questions! You absolutely must prioritize or weigh your arguments in comparison to your opponent's arguments. In other words, tell me why your arguments are better. For instance, is the impact of your argument larger, more probable, or going to occur sooner than your opponent's argument? Is your argument/evidence supported by scientific studies, empirical analysis, a more qualified author, was it published more recently?

I have an extremely high threshold on theory and probably won't be voting on it in the round since I rarely think that abuse stories are articulated well-enough. I also think theory has become a crutch for substantively responding to arguments. Feel free to make theoretical arguments regarding how certain interpretations of the topic are more fair, educational, predictable, etc., but these arguments should not be reasons to vote down your opponent. Use theory as a justification for your framework or as a defensive argument against your opponent's framework.