Sperber,+Brianne

I always introduce myself as a **traditional LD** **judge**, because I feel like the debate I did while in high school is "traditional." This means a few things to me and should suggest a few very basic things to debaters. I expect a standard to be upheld in the round by a series of arguments or extensions, and generally prefer that this standard be established as early as possible during the round. If debaters can't agree on a standard, that's okay, but I need to understand why his/her value is more important.

Please, debaters, for your own health and my sanity, **//slow down your speech.//** The extra 30 seconds you gain from straining your vocal cords won't really make that much of a difference in the end, and it's crucial that I can manage to write down your key arguments onto the flow. If I don't understand you, I won't flow it. If I don't flow it, when you extend it later, I won't know that it matters. I come from a time when we never asked to see one another's case and the judge never had to see my case to prove anything --- //**pretend like we are back in that time.**// //Your opponent should never have to see your case and neither should I.//

When making extensions, always keep in mind that the argument within a card is more important than the person's name. I normally get the argument and often miss the name, so if you extend "Pape 2" in your rebuttals, I won't really know what that means. Always think of rounds as a cause and effect and impact impact impact. Or, if you really want to just throw around the car tag name - make sure you really announce how important his name is. Shout it, flail your arms in the air, do something so I know to memorize the name. But again, the argument is more important.

I don't think that your argument has to be right in order to win a round. Sometimes, I think if you follow the procedure, hell if you even call all your opponent's drops, I might pick you up. Also, **keep in mind that if you drop all your opponents arguments, I might drop you for pure negligence/disorganization**. If your case is better, I'll be aware of it, but do yourself and your opponent the courtesy of actually debating it. Always treat your debater like (s)he is the best debater you have ever encountered; it shows sophistication on your part as well as proper manners. Politeness will win my heart and the ballot, and will most likely be reflected in your speaking points.

Please, do not run a Kritik or critique, whichever spelling you prefer, in front of me. I find them abusive in nature and a means of belittling debate as a whole. If you don't actually want to argue the resolution, find some other ridiculous negative argument, because trust me they exist, and sometimes, they are brilliant. But, the resolution always has both sides. I will pick up a Kritik if your opponent is inadequate, but this goes without saying. Theory debates are okay but should always be balanced with historical/current events. If you can find an example in US history or even world history, please please use it! It will only help you!! I**f you are running any philosophy, make sure you give credit where credit is due**. Tell me who's Social Contract you are running -- Rousseau and Locke are not necessarily the same philosophy and you should know the difference. If you just say "Social Contract," I'll want to know whose. //Also, Holocaust arguments are not entertaining and I generally won't entertain them. I don't think that you can bring up Hitler in every round and I don't think it's necessary//. Effective warrants and references to real life are always appreciated.

All you honestly have to do to impress me is the following: 1. establish a standard. 2. impact that standard in each speech: this argument provides for Societal Welfare which creates a Legitimate Government thus upholding my value and standard, etc. 3. Call out the drops but make sure this is done before 2NR. make sure they are fair. 4. Give me a laundry list at the end of your final speech of crystallization points. Literally, list them as 1,2,3. I'll appreciate it when looking back at my flows.

I really love this activity and love to come back to watch the rounds. It gives me a sense of nostalgia and I think that there is so much to gain from it. Be courteous, intellectually engaging, and just show off your brilliance, without being arrogant. I consider myself a fair, honest judge and hope that you will see the same if I judge you.

I also judge Public Forum. Most of these "rules" apply to that as well, except, generally speaking, whoever spews the better bullshit wins. Just be courteous and watch your speed.