Bratt,+Meg

Fundamentally, I want to see a good debate about the resolution. Sounds simple, but I've seen enough debates to know that's not always what happens!

For instance: when I say I want to see a good debate, that means I'm not interested in watching you try to prove to me that you're a good debater. If you really are a good debater, use those skills to engage the resolution and your opponent well. Don't waste your speech time pointing out to me the ways your opponent is less of a debater than you are--if that's true, I'll see it for myself, and evaluate it myself. Also, please don't misuse your skills by trying to come up with "clever" ways of avoiding talking about the resolution. I want to see a debate about the resolution, not about debate!! If you choose to run theory (which CAN be done well, when in service to the resolution, but is often done very, very poorly) make sure it's to a valid purpose, and not to just confuse and distract from the debate about the resolution.

On speed: I am ideologically opposed to the practice of "spreading" in LD debate. I, perhaps naively, believe that the skills you develop in debate should continue to serve you well in the future, when you enter the "real world." If you try to impress a boss or a client by "spreading," that's not going to work very well!!!! I believe the best arguments are the ones where every word counts. Conciseness is a far more useful communication skill to develop than speed. That being said--I realize that some debaters may prepare their cases to be read at a certain speed, and I do not want to fluster or hinder a debater who feels he/she cannot debate at a conversational speed, since my reasons for preferring conversational rates are due more to philosophy than to inability to follow speed. So, if you feel you must speed through arguments, AT LEAST DO IT CLEARLY, and realize that it is the strength of your arguments which will potentially impress me, never the speed at which you deliver them!