Cottam,+Tatiana

Clarity is your friend and mine. Be organized, both with the internal logic of your arguments (good ole' claim/warrant/impact works for me) and with how you organize which arguments go where.
 * Low-level things**

I want you to resolve for me which criterion to use so I can throw out a bunch of arguments (ie not have to think about them) and then invest my brain power into weighing the ones that matter (that actually have something to do with the criterion). And I don't use the term "criterion" strictly. If you have some other filter you want me to use (like a burden structure), that's fine too.
 * High-level things**

If you have "overviews," tell me why they should be considered before and above the criterion. Otherwise, I'll default to the criterion, no matter how many times you say (misuse the word) "prima facie."

I don't mind confident, even aggressive debate. But I do mind students who are hostile, constantly speak over each other, and/or yell. It's unnecessary, annoying, and ultimately works to your disadvantage, both because I can't hear what's being said if you speak over each other/yell and because I'll be thinking more about your abrasive demeanor than the substance of what you are saying.
 * Speaker Points**

Speed: I don't have anything against spreading implicitly. The problem is, if your debating is poor or mediocre, speed only makes the round more difficult to sit through. So, if you can keep things clear, structured, and well-reasoned (this means don't speed just for the sake of reading a bunch of cards in the hopes that your opponent will drop something), you can speak quickly.