Robledo,+Angelo

4 years competing LD. This explains my views on LD more eloquently than I ever could, []

That being said here are some specifics.

**Overview**: My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, and how well you refute your opponent’s case. I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument. I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis. I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. **Be a debater, not a competitive librarian **. I am not a fan of performance debates.

**Plans:** I will accept a case which offers some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan __//clearly and fully//__ relates to the resolution. I see LD as being very different from Policy—I am not a fan of very narrow and specific plans in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with some idea the other side never thought of, that’s not ok.

**Kritiks**: Refer to this []

**Values/ Criteria:** I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less (hint, this is what a value criterion is for). You should have cards in your framework.

**Expert Opinion:** When it comes to morality opinions I don't think there is such a thing as an 'expert' opinion. There are informed opinions, but I do not think anyone has an upper hand when it comes to stating moral principles. I think debaters should be able to articulate their own ethical viewpoints, but if they wish to use another source that is their option.

As an example: If debater A says "I think the death penalty is just" and debater B says "John Doe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Ethics at Yale, says the death penalty is unjust" I would have the debaters tied, as neither has given reason for why or why not it is just. I am going to judge the quality of your argument, not who is making it.

**Speed**: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing. At the end of the day this is a communication activity, please treat it as such.

**Cross-ex:** Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

**Pro-tips:** At least one logical fallacy happens every round. Find it and point it out (appeal to authority is most common, see "Expert Opinion" above). If you know the latin name, even better.

**For PF**, something I saw too often; skewing of statistics. It usually happened like this: "X will cause a 400% increase in Y!!" when the card says an increase from 1% to 4%. Yes, that is technically a 400% increase, but that's super shady. I'm a bit of a statistics nerd so don't do this. As usual, if you're racist, sexist, abelist, or otherwise obscenely rude expect an autodrop and low speaks.