Hey, I'm Victoria Adewole, and I will be judging your debate! I'm a high school senior, and I've been in debate for about three years.

Here's what I like to see in a debate:

• Clear signposting
• Speak fast and efficiently
• Treat me like I do not know what's going on. I will not use any prior knowledge during the debate (provide very clear links for your arguments!! This is the most important thing. If you do nothing else, do this.)
• Give me clear reasons why you win in sum
• Speak confidently (Even if you have no idea what's going on, confidence helps! :)
• Be nice!
• I do not flow CF, if you want to bring it up, do it in a later speech

If you rate my outfit before the round, I'll give you a bonus .5 speaker points!

^(Just lets me know that you actually read this lol)

Background: My name is Alex Boehne (pronounced [BEY-nee] for those interested). In high school, I completed 1 year of Public Forum and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas at Triad High School. I currently attend Southeast Missouri State University, majoring in cybersecurity with a minor in networking security.

I've got three big paradigms that usually decide the round for me:

1) ((!!!LD ONLY!!!)) Value debate - almost any debater can throw a bunch of facts out there and hope the judge understands what those facts mean, but good debaters can effectively take the cards that they have and link those back to their value and criterion. Remember: your V and VC are ultimately what you are supporting, and your evidence isn't going to be very useful if you can't say why it supports your argument.

2) Flow organization - this was my biggest challenge as a debater, and it just boils down to being able to effectively travel through the flow so I have the opportunity to track your arguments. Just make sure you make it clear with an off-time roadmap how you'll be traveling through the flow, and make sure to go down the flow so I can track your arguments. It's a lot harder to vote for you if I don't know where your arguments are going!

3) Voters' issues - so many good debaters ignore this one and make it way harder for good arguments to win! Make sure you allot yourself time to crystalize your arguments in voters and explain to me why you believe that you have won the round that I just watched.

Other than that, I don't have any preference for conventional or unconventional strategies (excluding abusive tricks), new ideas, or talking speed. When in doubt, I'm happy to answer a specific question you have about the round and how I'll be judging (although this is pretty much all of my thoughts). Best of luck!

HIGH SCHOOL

A basic overview:

--Don’t be offensive or rude. Passionate is fine, rude is not. Be respectful in CX!

--Please contextualize cards, don’t just read evidence. Be able to explain it and apply it in round.

--Clash please, don’t be two ships sailing past each other.

--If someone asks to slow down, please do.

--Don’t maliciously/intentionally lie.

--Overview/Underview's are very appreciated!

--Range is 26-30 USUALLY. 27 means you gave speeches. It was average. Basically it is my baseline where I adjust up and down.

--Impacts please!

--I love it when people read my paradigm

--Have fun and learn a lot!

If you want more knowledge, feel free to read the college section.

COLLEGE

I prefer to go by Nora now, though I will not be upset if you use my birth name. It is not traumatic for me personally, more of a comfort thing for me (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)

Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):

--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and personally traumatic for me. This is a potential vote down on the spot issue, if warrented out. (I'd prefer if you didn't use the terms p*ranoid/p*ranoia or d*lusional/d*lusion unless talking about the conditions, just a personal preference).

--DO NOT Misgender someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to use the correct ones) . I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate. Also a heads up I tend to ask pronouns before rounds start to insure I do not mmisgender. In genrtal. Do not be a bigot

--Please do not lie or be unethical in round. (You can make guesses and extrapolate, and even be wrong. Just don't tell me the sky is green without contextualizeing it)

--Please do not Lie about being a particular identity. I do not police identities (I will not force an outing or demand to know your identity), but do not lie about it. Being honest is the best policy with me I promise you.

--Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way. If no calculus is done, I default to magnitude then timeframe then probability

Overall/Background:

I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I now judge for any team that hires me. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
TLDR: I've been involved in debate since about 2015.

On Kritiks/Critical Affs:

I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Don’t say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. I’m not really up to date with the literature. I will be honest, I have read for fun, since dropping out of my masters, at this point and what interests me (often history). So odds are I have not read the literature on the K (Last critical lit I read/listened to was Capitalist Realism in August/Sept of 2022). So don't expect me to know it and do work for you. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.

On T/theory:

For Potential Abuse: I’d like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.

Cross-X:

I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it, but I will take notes and pay attention. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

Perms (Mostly For LD):

I like some warrants or explanation on why Perms will work. I need an explanation on stuff such as Perm do the CP on why I should allow that.

Procedurals:

I am willing to hear out procedurals outside of T. My favs include Conditionality. Now I will hear out frivolous procedures, however I will warn you it will be an uphill battle. Like my threshold for this is you absolutely have to be winning everywhere to win a frivolous/joke procedural. So do with this what you will. I however will not hear out racist, ableist, transphobic, or bigoted procedurals.

Misc.:

Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Don’t use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you don’t slow down, I will try to flow But I probably won’t get it all so you probably won’t like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFD’s and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions.

You can reach me at the following with any questions, I will try my best to answer!

justinfauszpersonal@gmail.com

Facebook: Justin Fausz

UPDATED November 4th, 2023

I believe that debate is an educational thing. Do not just read cards; analyze them and show me how they connect. I like to see a lot of impact weighing. I am also good with speed. For Lincoln Douglas, make sure you carry your value and vc through the round and show me how your case upholds them.

Important Information:

Debate to me is fun and competitive. So even if you do not win make sure that you are enjoying yourself before anything. Because if you are not enjoying it then there is no point for you to do debate.

• When stating arguments be specific have proper evidence to support it. I will listen to different arguments so do not be afraid to state any argument but make sure that they are respectful.
• During rebuttals make sure that you are being respectful to your opponent. Because if not that will impact my decision heavily since respect is everything when it comes to a debate.
• Make sure to push your value and value criterion on why they are important to the resolution.
• I like the contrast of the same definitions and how one should be preferred over the other based on the resolution.
• When it comes to contentions push the reason on why they relate to or negate the resolution.
• When it comes to speaking make sure that your opponent and I can hear you,
• You need to enunciate because I won't be able to properly flow if I can not understand everything that you are saying.
• When it comes to rebuttals flow everything through when attacking your opponent's argument. Because if not that will also impact my decision.

Jamari Jackson

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 3/15/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 2016 to 2023 for McKendree University. I have studied Business Administration, with a minor in legal studies, and a minor in accounting.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / Oral thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue. (I also teach comparative politics, including a chapter on India.)

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

3. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a utilitarian approach to evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

New: I'm Aurelia Montgomery, a judge coming with Belleville West. I've been judging for two years, exclusively in the Illinois circuit. I have no problem with speed of delivery. VC is very important to me. I have no specific expectations of formatting. I really like voter's issues (please do them!!!) but I can make a decision without them. Please extend arguments. In the case of argument vs style, argument will trump every single time. I don't have a preference on framework. Yes, there does need to be at least baseline evidence, although rhetoric is appreciated.

Old: Very heavy on framework (debate content is important, as are etiquette and following courtesy norms), it is the most heavily weighted factor in my judging philosophy. Cases and rebuttals still have to be factually correct, but the philosophical basis is more salient.

I expect debaters to be kind to each other, debate is a friendly practice in polite argument, not an opportunity to be rude to your opponent. This also ties into etiquette, points can (and will, depending on context) be lost if the debater doesn't follow courtesy norms (biggest ones being standing/facing the judge when talking, and ensuring everyone is ready/letting the judge know when you start). Going over on time is part of these norms, and points could be taken off depending on severity and reoccurrence.

But again, decisions rely almost entirely on framework, excluding extremely inappropriate conduct and flawed (ie fabricated or clearly misapplied) evidence. That also includes opinion that is presented as evidence.

I am a former Lincoln/Douglas and collegiate debater and a current litigation attorney. I learned many important skills during my time in debate that are applicable to various real world settings. Real world communications do not involve speed reading. A judge in a courtroom would hold me in contempt if I made an oral argument by seeing how fast I could read my notes. Likewise, I do not like speed. I like debaters to present their cases in a logical and persuasive manner. I also appreciate clash. Clash is best obtained when both debaters signpost their arguments and tell me where on my flow an argument should be noted. Finally, I appreciate being told why I should vote for you. Make it easy for me to record your arguments and to vote for you and I probably will.

Last thing- I am a fan of including the opinions of philosophers and historic figures in your cases. We may be debating current issues but I bet Aristotle, Socrates, Rawles or Bentham have offered opinions that are applicable to the topic at hand.

Last, Last thing- Have fun. This is a fun and rewarding activity. Don't take this or yourself too seriously.

About me:

Hi! I’m a former four-year debater (fall ‘19-spring ’23). I competed in PF, LD, and Congress (as well as the local speech circuit). PF was my primary focus in high school, but these days I tend to see more of LD. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask before the round starts.

General paradigm:

I’m all good with spreading (speed-reading). No matter how quick, I’ve probably heard worse before. Keep in mind that this is not necessarily the same for your partner or opponent. Make sure that everyone in the room is comfortable with it, otherwise you run the risk of losing the clash.

I love to see a framework argument in both LD and PF. In LD, having a value and criterion is a must. In PF, a framework is optional, but if one is provided it will factor into my decision. If the opponent does not attack its inclusion or suggest an alternate framework, then the provided one is implemented. Make sure these frameworks are not dropped. They must be mentioned in EVERY speech.

Similarly, I’m fine with a definition debate, as long as there is clash.

Jargon and technical language are allowed, but they will not win you the debate. At most, they may affect speaker points. The debate is about the holistic argument and not individual word choice.

I weigh the debate based on what arguments are flowed through each speech most effectively (in relation to a framework, if provided). I will not jump from one point to the next on my own. Please lay it out clearly and in an organized manner for every speech, or else I will not be able to justify carrying it through the round. Strong clash (particularly on frameworks) is preferred, but, in the end, the debate is what you make it.

Also, I will not flow CX. Please include in your speech any points that you would like to be on the flow.

Voter issues are a MUST in PF. In LD, I am more lenient. If you carry your framework throughout the round, it is fine to suggest that I weigh the argument on it, rather than the opponent’s voter issues.

The use of ad hominem and/or being disrespectful to other individuals (opponents, judges, etc.) will weigh heavily in my decision. I strongly discourage it. Debate has nothing to do with attacking individuals and everything to do with attacking arguments.

Overall, just be respectful and have fun!

My paradigm is not very strict.

This is because this is your event as a student. You are convincing me of your case and I believe the freedom in how you do that is helping you think more critically. This is supposed to be fun, so have fun! So don't be afraid of arguments that aren't normal. I am much more likely to vote for someone who thinks outside the box than someone who has the same case as everyone else.

That said if you take too much ground in a debate and the opponent points out an unfair framework that heavily has an impact on my decision.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth. If you think this is contradictory, you might spend too much time online.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive "progressive debate" tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individual feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the true explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. Saying your value is morality is like telling me you want to do something without specifying what you want. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

My background: I did LD for 2 years in high school and now compete at the collegiate level, earning a semifinal slot at Nationals in 2021. I also assist with my high school program on occasion. I currently attend Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville and am majoring in Accounting.

TLDR: It truly believe in a good value debate and quality over quantity. Definitions will not be judged. Be sure to show how your value and value criterion relate to each contention, and what impact that has. Well developed points and solid offensive arguments against your opponent’s case make you stand out. Constantly making defensive arguments and avoiding clash on points makes it difficult to show that you are the more skilled debater.

If you are a novice debater: do not try to do things that are way over your comfort and skill level. As a novice judge, I want to see what your foundational skills are, and many times novice debaters who try to use complex cards or more speed can hurt themselves more than help. Remember that your opponent has around the same skills as you, and that your first few tournaments should be learning experiences. 

I am completely open to odd, outside the box arguments, but the debater must prove them to be valid and ensure that they are better against their opponent’s case. I am more than willing to vote for these arguments if they are ahead on the flow and can argue the values of their case well.

Speed: Debating with speed is fine with me, if you are not speaking clearly or going too fast, I will give you “speed” or “clear” once or twice. After this, it is up to you to pick up on it- this most of the time means I am looking directly at you/not writing. If I can’t understand it enough to flow it, I can’t vote on it in the round.

I am always interested in hearing new arguments- I believe the same material is used too often in LD debate, and it is always tiresome to hear the same case argued round after round. I welcome originality!

Speaker Points: I determine speaker points on the quality of your case’s initial presentation, execution of rebuttals, and how persuasive I find your points to be. My average speaker points is 27.5, with 20-25 being reserved for problematic debating, and 29-30 being reserved for outstanding debating.

Name: Dave Van Zummeren

School Affiliation: Belleville West High School (Assistant Coach)

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? NONE

Number of years judging:1^st year

Have you judged in other debate events?

I judge tournaments when we are short on judges. I usually judge novice LD.

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)

I prefer speakers to be clear even if they are a bit slower. It is important to me that speakers clearly state their contentions and value.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

As long as the speaker can relate the case to their value criterion that is what I am looking for.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)

In this I like the big picture approach.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

They are not necessary in my decision however, I do think they can help strengthen a case.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- somewhat critical.

Flowing/note-taking-

This is a big thing! I look for speakers to attack what the opponent said.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

I value argument over style.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?

They can win with using their opponent’s framework. As long as the debater can prove their argument is the better option than their opponents.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?

Evidence is important. You must be able to back up your thoughts and assumptions with evidence in order to win the round.

Any other relevant information:

I currently teach Social Studies at Belleville West High School and this is my 2nd year as the assistant debate coach at Belleville West

General Thoughts

1. I appreciate students who are organized and can prove they have prepared for their topics .

2. Showing confidence in your arguments, proves you are well prepared.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about the rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine. Delivery is an important skill but I am more concerned about completing your work and your preparation.

4. Mistakes happen, I do not mind mistakes, but I appreciate aggressive mistakes! Keep going even if you make a mistake, everyone will!

5. The crossfire is an extremely important part of the debate. Please keep this in mind and make sure to attack specific points your opponent is making.

Best of luck to you

I look forward to judging you.

Dave Van Zummeren

Background: I did Lincoln-Douglas for 2 years at Triad High School. I currently attend SIUE and am majoring in History and Education.

I strongly believe in quality over quantity. It does not matter how much factual information you have if you do not connect it to your argument. Show how your value and value criterion relate to each argument, and show how each fact you provide relates to the argument it is supporting. Feel free to use unorthodox arguments, just be sure that they are valid and are stronger than your opponent's. Leave time for voter issues, it is very easy to get to the last few seconds of your speech and realize you have not mentioned them, but they are incredibly important.

When speaking, remember that I need to be able to flow your arguments, if you are speaking too fast then I cannot flow, and if I cannot flow your arguments then I cannot judge based on them. Ensure that when making a rebuttal you reference what you are rebutting, and if you reference your own case ensure you are specific with what you are referencing.

Speaker Points: I determine speaker points based on the quality of the initial presentation of your case, the execution of your rebuttals, and how persuasive your points are. Generally my speaker points are going to fall around the 25-27 point range, with 28-30 being for exceptionally high quality debating.