Lindner,+Katherine

= Background: = I am an assistant LD coach at George Washington HS in Denver, CO. I come from a very traditional LD State, so I am used to judging in an "old school" format. This means I am familiar with the traditional V/VC structure and how arguments work under that paradigm, but I am a little uncertain as to the function of other arguments and paradigms in LD (Although more on that later). My debate experience comes from debating locally in Louisiana. Moreover, this is only my second year coaching in a relatively new LD program so I am definitely not up to date on the latest trends. I should also tell you that the only circuit rounds I have judged on this topic are practice debates and thus, while I have a basic idea of many of the arguments on the topic, there are some I am less familiar with.

= How to debate in front of me: =

Speed:
I am generally good with some speed and will do my best to flow everything that you say. That being said, I must admit I am a little put off by debaters sitting down and reading at extremely rapid rates into a computer screen.

Framework:
Since the vast majority of my LD judging experience has been on the local circuit, I am not familiar with the complexities of ethical frameworks and have little to no experience evaluating meta-ethical, ontological or epistemological debates. That being said, if you REALLY want to run these arguments you had best slow down and explain the function of your arguments and the burdens set up by your framework. It's not that I am unwilling to vote on these, I just lack familiarity with them. I would prefer more simple, intuitive frameworks with simple burdens and intelligent analysis than complex frameworks that seek to preclude your opponent on multiple levels. Also, whether or not you think it's relevant in this day and age, I would prefer your case to have some kind of value that is defined via your framework.

Theory/Topicality:
I have little experience evaluating these debates and it would be helpful for me if you broke down the ballot story. If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality. I would say I have a high threshold on theory and topicality, and while I will try to evaluate these debates, you will run the risk of me not understanding the debate or where to vote if you run theory or topicality in front of me.

Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):
I have little to no experience evaluating these arguments. If you run them in front of me, you need to be extremely clear when explaining why I should vote for them. Similar to a theory debate, if you run these arguments in front of me, I may not understand the arguments or know how to evaluate them and not vote for them.

Misc. Off-case Positions:
I am used to traditional LD. This means I am used to the aff reading their case and then the neg reading theirs. If you want to read an off-case position, I need to know how it functions in relation to both frameworks, my ballot etc. Once again, you have the burden to explain your arguments to me if you want me to vote for them.

Tricks:
If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you should probably not pref me/haven't read anything else on this paradigm.I like to see substantive debate and am likely to give your opponent a TON of leeway on these arguments. I will not outright refuse to vote for them, but don't think that extending a blippy a priori out of the AC framework is going to persuade me to vote for you.

Winning my Ballot:
1. Be clear about how arguments function and interact. Speed of light cross-applications might lose me. 2. Break it down and make it simple. The easier your arguments are to understand, the more likely I am to vote for them. Crystallization in the 2NR/2AR is in your best-interest.

I reserve the right to tell you that I just didn't understand your arguments, so don't get mad if I vote you down because I didn't understand a blippy cross-application of your framework. I am a human, humans are fallible and regardless of what else it might be, debate is still a communicative activity because it involved two people communicating (albeit sometimes at high speeds) to a judge.

Also, because this has been an assumption made in the past: I DO NOT JUDGE THE WAY THAT MY DEBATERS DEBATE. Just because my LDers debate a certain way or make certain types of arguments does not mean I understand these arguments or want to see those debates.

Speaker Points:
I generally give either 29s or 30s. DO NOT SHAKE MY HAND AFTER THE ROUND.