Drummond,+Amanda

Note: I am a junior at lake highland prep and have debated LD for three years. I'm more inclined to run "tech" arguments, but obviously don't discriminate whilst judging. I HATE judge intervention, so don't put me in a place that would force me into it. I evaluate the flow, not flowery rhetoric intended to evoke an emotional response or appeal to my personal preferences. Major thing for me is framework, then contentions.

Speed: speed is fine. Ill say clear if necessary. don't make me say it more than 3 times or speaks will be significantly docked.

Speaks: speaks can be earned obviously with good clarity, fluency, roadmaps, etc. what's gets you great speaks are things like: strong and well warranted args, good argument selection, good big picture strat/clear plan, efficiency, voters

Framework: SOLVE THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Framework is essentially a mechanism by which I evaluate the round. Not only does your VC (value criterion) tell me why I care about your args, it also tells me how I weigh between the two positions. Win framework. Then link offense back. Win, basically. Even if you lose framework, I'm very receptive to turns or args that function under their standard as well. weighing args are chill too under the same fw. Coolest thing is when you can win the VC, win your NECESSARY offense then go for turns under their VC as well and/or prove why you're meeting their framework better than they are. (After you've killed their VC/justifications though)

Theory: to be Honest, I hate theory. Like I said, I hate judge intervention, so if you run it I won't vote against you. I am very receptive to logical theory such as NIBs bad or something. AKA: don't run frivolous theory. My personal philosophy is that it's counter productive in that theories initial purpose was to solve back for abuse in the activity. Don't run 5 theory shells like "numbering spikes or bad" just to win. It's annoying, and not as fun as hearing an actual substantive debate. I won't vote against you (especially not if they actually are violating) but don't run ridiculously frivolous theory just to win. I will dock speaks if you don't convince me, but you will win if you win on the flow. Btw, as a product if me hating theory, I haven't debated a ton, so I probably would be pretty bad at evaluating anyway!

HAVE FUN!!!!