Mahan,+Kelli

I began judging LD debate during law school (circa 2005-07). As a result, I tend to prefer a traditional approach, although I'm open to your style of argument as long as I don't have to work for it - resolve the argument for me.

Value, criterion etc. --> clear and delineated. Do not use theory to avoid debating the resolution. Meaningfully engage in your opponent's argument.

Speed is not an issue for me if the clarity and effectiveness as long as the arguments don't die a painful death as a result...

As an English teacher for ten years, I'm a fan of cleverly incorporated rhetorical devices (well-placed humor for instance), not to be confused with sprinkling your argument with buzzwords, jargon, and unnecessary verbiage.

Evidence is a biggie for me...I want to hear support for your argument, BUT a laundry list of support with no explanation is worse than a valid argument lacking sufficient evidence.

Speaker points: My preferences run to clarity!!!, confidence, tone, argument quality, etc I'm basically looking two fold - are you a quality public speaker and can you formulate and present a convincing argument?

My bottom line...I like debates that a well-informed citizen ("thinker on the street") can understand and support.