Le,+Geneva

Experience: 4 years

LD Judging Paradigm: A case that has a clear argument, warrant, and impact works in your advantage. Examples that are based off real-world situations instead of theories would also work in your advantage. A standard should be held throughout the debate. Philosophical arguments are also fine as long as they are coherent and pertain to the debate. 10 arguments are fine as long as each is in depth, but 2 arguments will also suffice. What matters is the quality of the argument.

Speed: I'm fine with speed. Clarity sometimes can be an issue, but I will let you know if you are unclear.

CX: I do listen to what occurs in CX. My final decision is not based off what is said during CX. I'm fine with conversing during prep time as well.

Voter Issues: Arguments that can be backed up by valid examples instead of something theoretical is a lot better. Impacts are important and the Value and Standard/Value Criterion should try to be upheld through the debate. Warrants and impacts should be emphasized, as well as weighting impacts.