Camous,+Dave

I have coached and judged LD Debate for over 10 years, mostly in Colorado and Florida, and many times at the NFL (now NSDA) national tournament. I expect that the structure of an LD case is well integrated. Your core value must be supportive of the position you are taking on the resolution, your criterion must be a measure by which we can judge that you are increasing your value, and your contentions must relate to the Value and Criterion. Pretty basic stuff, but amazing how many times that basic logical structure is not in place. I value good, intelligent, debate where every claim has a valid warrant. At the end of the day it is your responsibility to convince the judge, not the judge's responsibility to try to find your valid threads of argument. Moderate speed doesn't bother me, but excessive speed kills. Careful, though, as most debaters think they are far more clear at speed than they really are. If I can't understand your argument, then it won't be convincing. I flow, but not all arguments are of equal value, so make sure you are supporting and attacking the key linkages. You don't have to cover every argument to win, but you need to demonstrate a clear and compelling logically constructed case that wins on balance. Distilling to voters at the end of your last rebuttal helps me know what you feel is important.