Pelletier,+Joe

I've coached Debate and Speech for the last 22 years (Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and all Speech events). I consider myself a pure LD judge, focusing on Value, criteria and clash. While I'd like to see argumentation at the contention and subpoint level, a dropped argument is not the end of the world. Both debaters should focus on the key arguments as they see them in the round, and show how those arguments uphold their value/criteria.

I'm not impressed by speed. While I can keep up with most spreading, I find speed to be disheartening within a communication event. Go no faster than your opponent, and slower than your opponent may be better.

I'll entertain most any argument you run, though if your argument strays to abusive, it won't be difficult for your opponent to defeat the argument, as long as they address it clearly. I don't particularly care for kritics or definition debate.

I am less swayed by practical arguments, as I believe LD should exist in the "ought" world. Neither side has a clear burden of proof in all cases, but instead should focus on how their side is correct in most instances.