Jordan,+Lily


 * Background:** I did 4 years of LD on the Maine circuit and now debate for MIT's parli team.


 * In general:** Having debated mostly on a traditional circuit, I'm pretty traditional in my general outlook toward debate, which is that it's not only about arguments but also about communication. This doesn't mean that it's all about delivery, but it does mean that anything you argue has to be presented in a way that makes sense to a listener. As far as delivery itself goes, I would greatly prefer **no spreading** (presidential debates at 1.5x speed on YouTube are like the upper limit) and minimal jargon.

That said, I don't really care if you have traditional structure with values and criteria. I'm open to most arguments as long as they're explained well and you tell me explicitly why it affirms/negates the resolution (e.g., you could run a plan but I would be very confused as to how that wins you the round unless you spell it out). Creative stuff is awesome, but make sure you make the argument really clear.

On evidence: I prefer when debaters refer to arguments previously made in cards by the argument itself, rather than the name of the card. The exception is if the evidence is from some particular study and not just an expert's opinion. I'm not that familiar with the topic lit, so when you read a card, please say who the author is (as opposed to just their name).

Lots of signposting and warranting are great.


 * Theory:** Please don't do it unless necessary, and then do it in a non-formulaic way.


 * K:** Open to it, but make it unambiguous what the purpose is and how the round should be decided.


 * Speaks:** You can increase them by doing any of the following:
 * Using good analogies
 * Refuting the best possible form of your opponent's argument
 * Being polite
 * Being funny (puns are never not welcome)
 * Crystallizing well
 * Clearly having fun (side benefit: you have fun)

Not necessary but will yield bountiful speaks if achieved:
 * Speaking slower than your opponent but getting more substantive arguments in
 * Reading a case written entirely like [|this]

When in doubt, ELI5.