Robinson,+Jerome

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to LD debate. Since I've coached it for over 17 years, I think I have a good idea of what I'm looking for and how I choose a winner.

I look for 5 things - Speaking, Organization, Examples, Turns, & CX. If you're really interested read the article. []

I despise two types of counter arguments: 1) opponent's argument makes no sense, and 2) opponent's case is abusive because I can't use their criteria. If you need explanation, read the article. []

I like counter arguments. However, I don't like multiple arguments. I'd rather see a debate use more analysis and less arguments. I'm interested in why the arguments presented in both cases are either good or bad with some analysis supporting it. Giving 3-4 argument per contention is not analysis; it is simply rhetoric until I understand why all 3-4 matter. If you want to know what I'm looking for, read my article. []

I have a problem with spreading because to me it's not real debate. I like to see a real debate as opposed to who can get out the most words in their speech. Plus, the negative has a huge advantage if it's based on who can spit out the most cards. I can easily pick a winner if I had to judge an Open round but at bid tournaments they never give me a ballot. That should already tell you it's biased because I usually pick up the best debater which doesn't work for the TOC crowd. If interested in my reasoning read my article. []

I think that pretty much sums up my ideology. If you read the articles, you should have a good idea of what I'm looking for.