Jack+Law

Hello LD debaters, my name is Jack Law. I have debated LD for my entire high school career. I tend to repeat myself, so sorry for the redundancy in my paradigm.

Although speed in LD annoys me, I'm not going to hold you accountable for the norm. However, I ask that you slow down for your theory shells and complicated philosophical arguments. I also prefer you slow down a little bit for your taglines, but I highly doubt it'll be too much of a problem. I'd also like for you to give indications of ends of sentences. Don't just choose the middle of random words as pauses. As far as the way I flow, I usually like just flowing observations, V, VC, Contention taglines, card names...I sometimes give a brief summary of card names, but usually I like just letting the debaters debate it out and then if I have to, I will read the cards at the end of the round.
 * Speed**

I prefer voting off of who better achieves the winning framework in the round. I will probably increase your speaks for making the round easier to evaluate, and it enhances the clash in the round. If I only see extended justifications of framework and limited weighing, I usually (and unfortunately) decide the winning standard by counting the number of extended justifications. If the numbers of std. justifications are tied, then I will have to insert myself in the round to see which one's are more compelling.
 * Framework Debate**

I don't like giving leeway on extensions. I'd prefer you C.W.I all your extensions, unless the argument is completely dropped, in which case the claim and impact are probably enough.
 * Extensions**

Eh...I feel most of the critical arguments are a stretch. I need a clear reason why you should win the round, not just an unwarranted blip. Don't think I won't vote for these arguments, though. I just haven't liked them when I was debating.
 * Ks**

I disagree with the norm completely. Proving something right in one instance does not prove the res. true and does not enhance the education of debate at all. Although people don't like framer's intent arguments, I do agree that the framer's of the resolution didn't intend for us to justify the resolution in Israel.
 * Plans**

Fairness is a voter. As long as the debater says the fairness is a voter, even if he/she gives a weak reason, I'll probably accept it. What's not okay is not mentioning that fairness is a voter. I do like education vs. fairness debates, so if you're planning to run abuse theory, make sure to have fairness > ed. blocks. I default to reasonability. I like theory a lot better when there's actually clear abuse in the round, but if there's not, I'd probably lower your speaks if you win off of a bad theory argument.
 * Theory**

If there are any other questions, ask me during the round.