Melton,+Sam

I debated for 4 years for Lexington, doing mainly LD but also some policy. My original debate training was in policy, if that tells you anything.

Framework: I try to evaluate frameworks solely on the arguments you give. That being said, if there is no framework debate I'll default to an offense-defense framework. That doesn't mean I'm against truth testing, but in a situation where no one says anything one way or the other, that's how I'll evaluate the round. Kritiks: I like kritiks quite a bit in terms of the arguments themselves, but I don't like when the debate becomes a mess of jargon. Flooding the round with jargon may result in you winning (if your opponent doesn't answer), but I'll dock speaks severely if I think you're trying to evade substantive argumentation by using confusing words. I think the philosophical issues that tend to get raised in a good kritik debate are really the best parts of LD. Speed: In general, I'm okay with speed. Clarity can be an issue for me even if you're going really slowly, but I'll let you know if that is the case. Theory: I will vote for theory if you can demonstrate some sort of abuse. I don't like violations being run for the sake of running T, but if you give reasons why you are actually disadvantaged by some violation, I won't hesitate to vote on it. Counterplans: I think counterplans are really strategic, and a fun approach to the round. You shouldn't be bound to the converse of the resolution when negating.