Tyler,+Bryan

I debated LD for 3 years at Katy High School. I am currently a Boston Conservatory graduate student, but I still have a passion for LD.


 * Speaking skills and speed** – I believe strong speaking skills (making eye contact, speaking clearly and audibly, having a basic flow or continuity to your speech, etc.) are of the utmost importance in order to be persuasive. I’m not in favor of competitors making eye contact with each other in any portion of the actual debate since the competitors should be trying to persuade the judge. I can handle some fast speech, but if the speaker’s pace becomes frantic I may have trouble understanding them and in result may not vote for them.


 * Arguments** – LD debate needs to feel more concerned with values (and how advocating the resolution meets or fails to achieve those values) than plans and buckets of evidence. Since competitors have such strict time limitations, it is very important that they focus their time on presenting clear arguments that carry significant weight in regards to the resolution and that those arguments extend to the end. Extended arguments should briefly include the original claim, impact, and weighing mechanism. In rebuttals, competitors should group arguments as much as possible to avoid being overly redundant.


 * Cross-Examination** – I thoroughly enjoy an eventful cross-examination. Clarify arguments and definitions, but also utilize the time with effective questioning to get your opponent into a corner (please avoid strict "Yes or No?" questioning). Then you have something extra to carry into your 1AR/1NC. Arrogance and not allowing an opponent to get a reply across will detract from a competitor's speaker point total.


 * Voters** – Voters list a few major reasons I should side with your take on the resolution. Voters should not be broad. Avoid laundry lists. I make my final decision from the voters I am given.


 * Special tactics** (critiques, observations, straight refutation, etc.) – Special tactics should be presented as well-defined positions. Please include sufficient reasoning that warrants the tactic’s presence in the round.