Uecker,+Eric

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round. I do believe the debate is ultimatetly about the resolution. Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought Evidence: Using known philospical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required. A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments. However, the case does require evidence. Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow. Plans and Counterplans: I'm not used to them in LD. However, I'm not inherently opposed to them. If plans are allowable, CPs must be, as well. There is a case for them if the word "ought" is in the resolution, since ought=should and should=a propostion of policy. However, since LD is intended to be value debate, deontological principles need to be considered as well as utiltarian outcomes. Like in policy debate, plans must be topical and counterplans must be non-topical and mutually exclusive. Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. Experience: I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979. I was a high school policy debater. I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value. I have coached CEDA at the college level. I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.