LD Paradigm

Debate Experience:
I was a 4 year debater in high school at Waukesha South High School (2010-2014). I come from a policy background since I won Varsity Policy at the WDCA State Tournament in 2014.

Judging Experience:
I have been judging LD Debate for this season (2014-2015).

Speed:
As I am primarily familiar with Policy Debate (being a former debator), I can follow speed. However, I explicitly feel that excessive speed is not necessary and really should not be used in LD Debate. If you choose to use speed, then you must be clear and articulate well. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If I have not flowed, it is as if it was never said.

Value, Value Criterion:
You must have both, and must support them throughout the round. I want you to analyze your criterion as well as your opponents criterion so as to tell me which is better, more useful, effective, or why the opponent's is not. This should happen in rebuttal as you are summarizing and synthesizing your arguments to me and at which point is appropriate for you to tell me that I should vote on your Criterion and Value.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of definition debates. Frankly, I feel like it wastes time that could be used for comparing evidence and actual source related content and not arguing "my horse is bigger then your horse". The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meanings. If they substantially differ your value or argument from your opponent's whose argument/value is similar and will then actually clarify a difference affecting my voting, then read them. If you are doing it to "cover the bases and run through the motions", this is not a good way to spend your time! Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Theory:
I do not like theory based debate! Please avoid all theory arguments at all costs. I feel they aren't always fair for opponents as they leave the debate one sided for one party to say anything and limits the opposing party to certain restricting and unfair boundaries.

Cross-Ex:
Cross-Ex is a time for getting clarification on your opponent's case and arguments, not to berate them and try to prove your superiority or time for you to push your ideas down their throats by ending with "isn't that what i said in my first constructive?". I expect cross-ex to be civil and if it become abusive then I may doc speaker points based on your performance.

Voters and Weighing The Round:
I like having voter issues explained to me like why they are a substantial voting issue to be weighed in my decision. Voters = Good. Similarly, I NEED YOU TO WEIGH THE ROUND! Tell me what you think is important in the round and and why I should vote on them. This is apart of analyzing and comparing criterion, as well as contentional evidence and needs to be done in rebuttal.

Oral Critiques and Disclosure:
I usually follow tournament guidelines as to whether or not I am allowed to disclose my decision. I often do not do it. I like giving oral critiques so feel free to stick around after the debate and I can give you feedback on your performances.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at arettinger18@gmail.com