French,Katie

My LD Paradigm Quick overview:
 * I view progressive and traditional args equally.
 * I expect you to have a solid understanding of your args and thorough explanations
 * Speed is ok, I will say clear if necessary.
 * Cover the flow, multipronged attacks are a good idea
 * Line by line is good
 * Give voters at some point.
 * All Off case (excluding theory!)variations are fine, be prepared to justify them if scrutinized
 * **Note:** If you give crazy, unrealistic/unsubstantiated hypothetical situations that lead to you concluding that the world will end by voting for your opponent, I will dock speaks/ not view it seriously.
 * I will keep a vigorous flow, and vote off the flow/what you make the most important. Explain why I should be voting for you, and how I should be weighing.

1. Background: I am an LD debater in high school; I have also done PF and Congress. Covering the flow is important, depth of knowledge is expected, and responses better be good. 2. Overlapping philosophy and suggestions:

Presentation of rebuttal: Speed is OK with a traditional case. If you are unclear, I will say clear. If you are too fast for me (shouldn’t happen) than I will say slow, at which point you decide whether you want to slow down or pray that I can understand. Slow down for tags, and name of evidence; speed up for analysis. If you go slow, that’s cool too. I’m not going to dock you points/look down upon you either way. Cover the flow. Crystalize. I prefer line by line analysis. Give me voters at the end or as you cover the flow, either way is fine. Be polite to me, and be polite to your opponent.

Traditional: Cases: Values must link. Criterions should, in some form, enable a high goal (your VP) to be actualized. Contentions need to link into values. Please understand the philosophy you are utilizing and read more than a page about it. For contentions, args can utilize empirics, narratives, and/or theoretical reasoning- but, that said, be prepared to justify your style of evidence**.** For traditional LD, a simple claim-warrant-impact approach can be effective, especially if you utilize these terms in rebuttal. I like traditional, but it can be quite blasé if your knowledge of philosophy is shallow. Research, understand, and come ready to present- if you don’t do this, you better have a rebuttal tactic that forces me to vote for you

Progressive: a. Plans: they are ok with me. Have solid links, my goodness. Get creative. Get quantitative. Have solid justifications for why you are running a plan. And link into the topic. b. Ks: I like K’s a lot. But, because I don’t hit Ks all that much, I’d prefer you don’t spread it if its dense material; it will give me more time to catch every claim you are making. Just because I am open to it does NOT mean that it’s an instant win c. CPs: cool with me IF your opponent is running a plan. Same with PICS. Feel free to get crazy. d. Theory: the bar is high for what justifies theory. I will listen to it if your opponent is incredibly abusive, but I don’t need theory to vote on abuse; you can just warrant WHY its abusive. I AM NOT as acquainted with theory as other offcase stuff, so you run a risk of confusing me quite frankly. So IF YOU MUST use theory, please don't use all the associated acronyms.

My PF paradigm: I have a PF background,love the event. Debate like Mark, who won Yale 2012, and I'll be very happy. AKA: -be polite, dear goodness. -have great evidence -debate on the concept and evidence level -be really well read -speak with a demeanor that is appropriation for the judges, or 'public'. -be incredibly organized in how you cover the flow -create ways to weigh args, either with framework or with simple logic in the debate. - I am open to strange args, but there is no preference either way..just make sure whatever you do and say, you have SOLID LOGIC