Hudgens,+Jordan

**Affiliated with Bainbridge HS (WA), Eastside Catholic (WA) **

**How I decide LD Debates: ** I've coached Bainbridge for 4 years. Free agent 2015.

//overview tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments.//

//tl;dr claim/warrant/impact, link it to your standard, guide me around the flow//. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time.

//tl;dr IGNORE VALUE DB8 UNLESS IT'S A COMPLEX MORAL SYSTEMS THROWDOWN. Framework debates are my fav.// The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer //justice//, or //social welfare//, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, '//life is a prerequisite for morality!'// if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point.

//tl;dr: I love theory. I love weird arguments. Theory is a strategic tool and abuse check. Your judge should be able to figure out when it's which, but it's up to your opponent to handle it correctly.// In the past, I hedged a lot on my love for theory because I think that theory should never be the only layer in a debate round, and it should rarely be the entirety of the 2ar; but, recently, I've loved all-in 2ar theory debates PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY AND INTERESTING. I default to an RVI unless told otherwise, and you can certainly say why an RVI doesn't exist. You should define what an RVI is, whether it applies only to imeets (does no-rvi apply to counter interps with independent voters? probably not...but, then, you COULD get an RVI by beating your opponent on their counter interp and winning the RVI. This would be cray-cray).


 * Getting a 30:** I GIVE DOMINANCE 30S. YOUR OPPONENT IS NOT A CUDDLY TEDDY BEAR; THEY ARE THE ENEMY. CRUSH THEM. Speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT. THEY ARE A SAND CASTLE AND YOU ARE A BULLDOZER. I don't care that much about your body language, but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. I used to say you should be courteous but f that. YOU SHOULD BE SASSY AND DIRECT;; WHAT IS THIS, KINDERGARTEN? ed. note: this does not mean being totally rude all the time, but eye rolls and cutting people off and being snarky are all A++.