Last changed on
Sat October 16, 2021 at 5:59 AM CDT
Actively listen and respond to your opponent's case or critiques. I don't like spreading. I award speaker points mainly as a reflection of these things. As a judge, I intervene only when absolutely necessary. I keep a loose flow in your Comments section, so you can see which parts of your case stand out to a judge, and which ones need to be presented more clearly. Comments in Italics are feedback for your reference. If you see that I missed part of your case in my notes, consider that part something you need to be more clear on (either verbally more audible & intelligible, or make the argument clearer to follow).
Theory
I want solid warrants and actual clash. I will not vote for you if you do not engage your opponent's case.
Topicality
This is the only "rule" of the game. Be clear on your taglines and how they relate to the resolution. Topicality is a procedural requirement, so don't use it to waste time. "Aff dropped topicality, so you must vote Neg" won't win my vote. I evaluate theory before topicality, but you must still be topical. Framework is vital to topicality.
LD specifics
Aff - Be topical. I want to know what your method is and does at the end of the round. Explain to me why the Resolution should be affirmed, and clearly refute the Neg's case.
Neg - Stay topical. I want to hear your negation of the Resolution as well as your refutation of the Aff.