Bernsen,+Lindsay

I was a high school debater for Clear Brook High School in Friendswood, Texas, and I now attend the University of Texas at Dallas.

General:

I try to be tabula rasa. I expect debaters to fully prove their arguments in-round, and I will not do any work on the flow that I have not been asked to do. I expect to be told when to extend, when to cross-apply, and what to vote on. (If these things do not happen, my own evaluation of the match may not match the one you wish.) I also expect arguments to clash and be pertinent to each other. I WILL have my own opinion of your performance independent of the one you try to persuade me to hold, but I will share that only during critiques and it will not effect my RFD (unless I am provided with nothing else to vote on).

Presentation/Speaks:

Face me, //shake my hand//, maintain eye contact. You should also tell me whether to expect open or closed CX at the beginning of the round.

I abhor prompting; the speaker points of the prompting team will be reduced. Prompting allows teams to skate by without full preparation, AND diminishes the judge's perception of the prompted partner's experience and knowledge-base. Do not do it.

You do not have to address arguments line-by-line, but you should signpost.

Speed is not an issue.

Kritiks, Counterplans, Topicality, Theory, etc.:

I will not bar you from presenting anything that is well-prepared, relevant, well-explained, and well-argued. However, I expect to hear a clear case-link and clash, rather than a universally applicable list of errors or a standard bite-in. Nevertheless, I will vote on an ill-explained or non-case specific argument if I have been told to and there is no refutation from the opposing team.

While it isn't necessary for the negative to have on-case arguments to win a round, I do enjoy hearing on-case arguments because they involve direct, in-round analysis.

A priori:

An issue will only be considered a priori if specific reasons are given to mandate that status. For example, magnitude or timeframe arguments might work. Topicality is not automatically a priori.

Miscellaneous:

I am a bit of a softy for creative affs - those not peddled by camps. They were always my favorite to run, and I feel like writing them engenders a greater understanding of the original texts than running pre-cut cases does. While I will still always vote for the team with the best arguments, there may be room for some extra speaker points for awesomeness.