Clark,Vicki

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I value traditional LD debate. That means no counterplans, kritiks, theory, or anything that resembles policy debate. I vote on presentation (your speaking ability) and how well you convince me. As far as actual contentions go I am up for anything (within restraint of course i.e no extinction or alien arguments). In addition, I do not like it when debaters spread. If I can't understand you I can't flow your arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively and you have a good chance of picking up my ballot.

Preferences for the round: -time yourselves -be respectful in CX, let them finish their answer but it they start to ramble on you can cut them off -you MUST have a value and a criterion or I will not vote for you, if you don't like value criterion then you're in the wrong event -make eye contact with me -do not read your case off of a computer (doing so is poor presentation and speaking style) -do not just say extend this or extent that. tell me WHY -make it easy on me and tell me why I should vote for you, confidence is key -do not stand up there and say "my opponent did not address this card so they lose". They do not need to address every last card that you read. As long as they attack the contention as a whole then it doesn't matter. However, if they drop a contention then bring it to my attention -do not complain about unequal times. I actually judged a round where one of the debaters claimed it was not fair that she was affirmative because the speeches are not as long. If you want equal speaking times go do PF -I will not make arguments for you -give clear concise voters

And lastly I feel I have to add this because I see it used too often and I think it is the most ridiculous card ever: A meta-analysis claiming that all the (insert side here)'s empirics are false is not convincing. In fact, a study of a study would have more flaws than the original. I really hate when a debate turns into a debate about evidence. A sign of a good debater is one who takes the facts as they are and uses them to their advantage instead of cowardly trying to say their facts are not true.

What I vote off of: By the end of a round I usually have a good idea of who is winning. If the competitors are equal on the contention level then I vote for the better speaker. If the competitors are equally good speakers then I vote off of the arguments. The biggest deciding factor is value and criterion. If you don't have one or you don't defend yours then I will not vote for you.

Basically, my process goes like this: 1. value and criterion 2. speaking skills 3. contentions 4. persuasion -I start at number one and if the two are equal on that number then I move to number 2 and so on until I find a point where they are unequal. If the competitors both do not have value and criterion and are poor speakers and can't debate at all and make no efforts at persuading me or telling me why I should vote for them then I will arbitrarily flip a join. Please, don't force me to do that.