Crist,+Geordin

-I look at and teach LD with a very clear system of links in mind: Resolutional Action --> Contentions (Reasons why RA is good) --> Criterion --> Value --> Resolutional Value Word (Morally, Justified, Ought, etc.). Especially at varsity levels, I expect you to be able to provide offense in the round not only through your cards and contentions but also through links from those to your criterion and value. One of the universally weakest links I see in most LD debates is links from contention/card level to framework, so if you can pull that through and impact back to framework and resolution, you'll win me over.

-I'm not a fan of just about anything outside of traditional LD: critical, theory, kritiks, CPs, performance, DAs, etc. Frankly, they're hardly ever done well, and at even at their best they limit the scope of debate.

Finally, a note on conduct: I will never award less than 25 speaker points for someone who is polite in-round. Rudeness, either to me or your opponent, has historically lowered that amount down to as little as 15, though I am not averse to decreasing that further. Conduct matters a lot in front of me. You are professional students; please act like it.