Judge Paradigm:

I have no constraints on Wisconsin competitors.

In high school I was active in L.D for 3 years as well as policy and public forum for one. I am currently an Extemper as well as parliamentary debater for Ripon College.

Rate of communication in L.D ought to be a moderate speaking style that doesn't have me rushing to flow the arguments.

Communication is key in order for any argument to be on either debater's side. If I cannot understand your arguments due to speed, the burden is on you to fix it.

I request that the information that you are presenting is precise and able to get the point across. On that matter, if debaters are going to attempt to persuade me, please do not advocate something that doesn't make sense to the common person. Sides can be persuasive all you want, but if the pieces don't fit debaters won't be getting my vote.

Arguments made in C-X will be flowed if relevance is made clear. Of course, each debater must act in a civilized and respectful manner.

I am a firm believer that L.D debate is based on both sides having an equal burden.

The connection between case and the Value/Criterion debate is beyond essential. The basic technique to uphold the value and criterion is always taken into consideration when examining contention relevance.

Another big importance is the use of idealistic situations. I do believe that it would be in either sides best interest to utilize examples that do involve the real world. Although philosophers base quite a bit of their arguments around idealistic worlds and situations, it is important to show me how it can apply in the real world today.