Salisbury,+Rachael


 * || I am a previous debater; I debated 3 years, including on the national circuit. This paradigm will be based off of who justifies their arguments and can convey their message as if to a non-national circuit LD judge.

 **Speed:** I do not mind speed. I feel that speed can be utilized by speakers that are capable of doing so to their advantage. However, if I cannot tell what you are saying, I will give two warnings by saying "clear." After the 2nd time if you don't slow down to an understandable speed, speaker points will be significantly affected.

 **Speaking Preferences:** Last names for authors are fine. Taglines for evidence should be clear and concise and be easily told apart from the contention taglines. Make sure I can tell one evidence card from the other. Analytics placed on to the end of the evidence cards in an attempt to disguise them as evidence are unethical and I will give you 20 speaker points. I will not refrain from asking to see evidence cards if need be.

 **Substantial Arguments:** Arguments directly relating to the topic are the most important objectives in the round. I will be judging based upon your affirm/negate on a substantial basis. Relate contention-level arguments back to your framework. Convince me that what you are saying is topical and meaningful to me.

 **Off cases arguments:** I’m fine with off case arguments, including ADs, DAs, plans, CPs, etc. However, they must be topical as well as logical. I do not, however, allow Kritiks or narratives.

 **Philosophy:** Most philosophical frameworks will need to be explained to the fullest extent. This is a challenge to debaters to actually know what they are talking about and convey this to a normal person. If the framework seems logical and explained, I will accept it. Show me why your framework is better than your opponents and why it is meaningful to the AVERAGE human.

 **Theory:** Theory **ONLY** checks abuse. If you are unsure if I will understand your theory shell, do not run this in front of me. Explain it clearly. If it matters to you, you will spend time on this. My preference is to drop the argument not the debater. I will not accept 15 second 1AR theory into three minute 2AR theory. You should not need resort to this method to win.

 **CX:** I will judge part of your performance based on CX. Most of this will contribute to getting higher speaker points.

 **Extensions:** Extensions must be clear and linked back to your framework in a meaningful manner. I will not accept 2 sec blip extensions without warrants or applications to your standard. They should explain why you win this argument. I cannot emphasize this enough: impacts are important!

 **Speaker points:** Even if you do not win the debate, well organized, compelling arguments will be awarded good speaker points. Stuttering and losing your train of thought will lower your points. An average debater will get 27 speaker points. If you aren't clear and on point with your speaking, the lowest point award will be 24. Only those who I believe can possibly win the tournament will get a 30. ||

Created with help from Chad Burgess.