Monroe,+Elizabeth


 * Elizabeth Monroe (Liz)**

Desert Vista High School (Arizona)
 * School Affiliations (Present)**

I believe very strongly in the aspect of the Lincoln-Douglass debate that sets it apart from other styles of debate: that is, the framework. I'm old school - I like the philosophy, and I'm a traditionalist.
 * Paradigm (Lincoln-Douglass)**

That being said, I appreciate all attempts to convince me to see things in different ways. As long as I buy it, and I feel that there is appropriate "clash" throughout the round, it is acceptable. That being said: __If you are running an argument just because you think its neat and different and don't know very much about it, and cannot argue why your framework is better, DON'T.__

A note on Theory: This seems to be the new "it" thing. I'm not sure why. Theory is to protect people from abusive arguments. If you don't hear an abusive argument... DONT RUN THEORY. You are not a peacock. And, I won't listen to it.

Another note on framework. Your framework is the method by which you affirm or negate the resolution. Guess what that means? If you loose your framework in a traditional LD debate, you drop the round. Just in case you were curious.

Also, note that I abhor extinction arguments. Save the zombie apocalypse for the movies please. (I have been known to pick up debaters who run them, however, if they are debated well)

Evidence is important in an LD round as well. I realize that LD has traditionally favored expert testimonies over straight empirical pieces of evidence, however, I believe a blend of the two, especially when debating a resolution that calls for empirics to weigh impacts, is most appropriate. There are a lot of "experts" out there in various areas... I would personally like to have something concrete to back up someone else's opinion.

That being said: It's important to note that I can read the Internet just like everyone else. If I wanted to know expert opinions, I would Google them. I want to hear your //interpretation// of these expert opinions - how you put it all together, and HOW YOU RELATE IT BACK TO YOUR FRAMEWORK.

Voters are important in the 2AR and the 2NR... very important. Did I mention they were important? Tell me on what issues I should evaluate the round, do not just re-hash all of your arguments. I was listening, I promise. Otherwise, left to my own devices, I will evaluate the round in whatever way I want. Fair warning.

I flow everything except CX (though I make notations and it does factor into my decision). I rarely look up. If I ever put my pens down during around, and they are completely out of my hand, there is trouble... or if I give you a "look" - that's when there REALLY is trouble.

If I am allowed to disclose, I will. I will also provide a critique and a detailed RFD.

Most of what I wrote under LD holds true here. But, a couple of thoughts:
 * Preferences (Public Forum)**

If you are going to provide a framework through which to see the debate, RELATE ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS BACK TO THAT FRAMEWORK. Don't just mention it at the beginning and think that is enough. I am an LD judge. I like framework. I don't like it when people don't use it properly.

That being said: It's important to note that I can read the Internet just like everyone else. If I wanted to know expert opinions, I would Google them. I want to hear your //interpretation// of these expert opinions - how you put it all together, and how it relates back to the resolution

Voters are important (i.e., the only thing that should be in your Finals Focus. I will vote straight off of the voters that you have listed, if you provide one. If not, I will vote how I see fit. Fair warning.

Make my life easy. When you are providing turns and extensions: Reference the card, and remind me what it is about. SIGN POST like crazy. And give me a ROAD MAP. The easier you make my job as a judge, the more time I spend on your arguments.

Also, have your cards ready at the end of the round. I'll ask for them.

I do use CF to evaluate the round, and I do take into consideration performance for speaks. CF should not simply be for clarification - set up your offense. Don't spend TOO much time calling into question sources' credibility.

If I am allowed to disclose, I will. I will also provide a critique and a detailed RFD.

//**Any questions... please ask!**//