McCormack,+Melinda

I enjoy traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate-the kind devoid of debate jargon, anchored by a value and value criterion, and peppered with logic and philosophy. I don't mind a narrative, but it had better be entertaining and appropriate to the topic. Kritiks and shells are like histamines and will clog my brain as goldenrod clogs my sinuses. Speed Kills! If you speak at the rate of an auctioneer I, and your opponent, will not be able to flow your arguments and there will be nothing to "carry across the flow" (UGH!). Be clear, be insightful, link your impacts to the arguments. That does not mean you cannot present arguments which are interestingly "out there"-do it well and you will be rewarded.

Or as **Mike Evans** writes so simply and beautifully: I like to see attention to values, value criteria, definitions, and references to recognized philosophers. If you base your case on justice, I expect to hear what kind of justice you have in mind and what ethical system it is based on. If you want to talk about rights, you would do well to explain where those rights come from. I care about contentions only insofar as they support a coherent argument, so I don't particularly care if some one drops sub-point c of contention 3. I loathe spreading. I find critique tedious. I am willing to consider impacts, but in an ideal affirmative-universe/negative-universe way rather than a policy way. I appreciate analysis, logic, clear language, and good manners. In sum, I am a traditional judge.