Dennison,+JR

I find the biggest issue in LD debate to be strong impact analysis weighed through the value and criterion. Winning the value criterion debate will not necessarily win my ballot, only the way the round is weighed. The easiest way to win my vote is to clearly explain your reasoning and how it is superior to your opponent's reasoning. I am open to all types of argumentation as long as all arguments are clearly explained. I will not extend evidence based solely on reference to the author; I expect rebuttals to feature clear explanations of what arguments are being extended and what their implications are. Voters are most persuasive if given at the end of final rebuttals and if they effectively crystallize the round. On a scale of 1 (conversational speed) to 10 (fast policy) I am able to follow about a 4 to a 5, but prefer a debater's presentation style to add to the persuasiveness of a speech, and generally find speed to detract from this. I find jargon, especially policy terms, disagreeable because they make debate less accessible and all too often cover up persuasive ineptitude. That being said, impressive speaking style and fancy rhetoric alone will not win you my ballot. Rounds should demonstrate the logical argumentation and critical reasoning skills of debaters and this is what I will ultimately use to determine who is the better debater.