Long,+Marcia

I enjoy a more substantive debate that has real clash versus spreading unwarranted and weakly supported ideas with little impacts.

Ultimately LD is supposed to be a value debate; thus, I look for a strong theoretical framework through which each contention links and a strong understanding of the type of framework (whether it be deont., conseq., util., or a blend). I prefer philosophical warrants in the framework. The framework debate should focus on who provides the best value and criterion, not who better achieves them (that should be left for the contention level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is completely acceptable if the debate can better achieve it at the contention level. Strong argumentation would begins with the framework, but is ultimately won or lost in how strong the contentions and refutations of the opponents' contentions are. Cards/evidence/theories are crucial to developing the contentions and proving the framework true or impactful. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that LD does not require any evidence. If a consequentialist or utilitarian claim is made, then evidence that supports the claim is crucial to winning the point.

I like meta-ethical debates that ask us to question the nature of morality as it pertains to a resolution and discourse kritiks that are topical, but I am not a fan of post-modern theory or apriori existential arguments that ask us to question our existence or reality in general. If we can't make basic assumptions about why we are all in the round and what my vote really means, why should I judge in the first place. Also, don't run outside agenda cases with the warrant that this provides the only forum to advocate for a particular cause that you really could care less about, such as feminism, vegetarianism, classicism (unless you can provide me with brochures, pamphlets, avenues to get involved, etc. because I already am a quasi vegetarian/feminsit/socialist, so you are wasting your time). I find counterplans, disads, overviews, etc. that are topical to be perfectly legitimate. I am not opposed to nontraditional cases as long as they are substantive and offer a clear weighing mechanism.

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event solong as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of the terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

If the case is truth-testing, you may only need to prove the resolution true or false to win; however, most rounds are won on not only refuting opponents' points, but extending your own offense or turning your opponents' points into offense for your side of the debate.

Although I do not mind a brisk pace, I have a low appreciation for policy-style spewing. Moreover, I shouldn't have to read your cards to understand what you are running. I am familiar with many philosophers, but my ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it).

Lastly, I do not value a policy theory shell. If your opponent is being abusive, please just explain why the burden, observation, or framework is abusive. There is no need to give interpretation, standards, violations, and voters, etc. I definitely will not entertain theory shells on time skews, so don't waste your time.


 * I love LD:** A fast-paced round with lots of clash, impacting, turns, and clear voters is exhilirating!! Have fun in the round!!