Lawler,+Amy

I debated LD and policy for Minneapolis South in the mid-1990s (I'm still loosely affiliated with South as a volunteer coach) and have judged roughly 10 LD rounds this year (09-10). I am an attorney practicing in St. Paul.

I’m essentially a dinosaur. I like rounds where the cases are more traditionally structured, where there is direct clash and line-by-line on the rebuttals, where debaters present me with round-specific voting issues, and where the debaters use cross to their advantage by asking clever questions.

I don’t like it when debaters spread, but I will only yell "speed" or "clear" once - at that point, you're on your own. I particularly don’t like it when LDers rely heavily on pre-written blocks, because it inevitably prevents a good line-by-line clash. Because I think that LD should be preparation for real-world advocacy, I expect debaters to face me and make a decent amount of eye contact when speaking. If you are medically able, you should be standing up during all of your speeches and during cross.

I am generally lost on theory arguments, in part because I think the debaters are usually lost too. So while I will listen to anything, and vote on virtually anything as long as it's argued intelligently, you will really have to go a good job explaining any theory that you run. I am not a fan of the way that policy debate has headed during the last decade or so, and I don't like that LD seems to be following policy's path. With that in mind, it would take a lot to convince me that plan debate, T, or formally-structured kritiks have a place in LD.

I give oral critiques after rounds, and you can also feel free to ask me more about my judging preferences before the round starts.

Finally, I expect opponents to be respectful of one another, and I will dock speaker points for rudeness (and even vote on it, if the the behavior is truly abusive).