Symmonds,+Josh

I'm a pretty staunch supporter of "traditional" LD. Use of evidence can be fine, but good analysis will win out every time. Squirrel cases don't impress me. Just because you found a card that you think your opponent can't answer doesn't make you a good debater. I prefer a conversational pace of debate, and while I can flow pretty well, if I don't get it on the flow, it doesn't get put into consideration. (No, I won't let you flash me your case beforehand so you can spew it out at a thousand words a minute.) As far as the structure of the debate goes, I weigh the value portion of the debate most heavily. If you lose the value debate, you cannot win the round. After that, voters happen by order of impact, and it will be up to you to prove which impacts are the major voters. Finally, be nice. No one likes to hear another debater scream at someone. I will absolutely dock speaker points for unnecessary anger, yelling, or rudeness.