Findley,+Scott

I am a parent judge, and have judged for three years on the local and national circuit. I would consider myself a traditional flow judge. I'm not comfortable with judging a progressive round (i.e. kritiks, theory, plans, spreading etc...)


 * __Framework.__**
 * I am open to hearing different frameworks, however I personally have not read the literature behind many of these frameworks. That being said make sure you explain your framework carefully. Don't just rush through and expect me to perfectly follow. I will judge the round based on your ability to maintain your framework via your value and value criterion and supporting contention level offense.
 * I enjoy both a good philosophical framework debate and a good contention/substance debate. If you engage in the philosophical debate, make sure to make your weighing is clear and explain how your framework is better or your opponents is wrong etc. Short and blippy framework arguments are not the way to win the framework debate. CLEAR EXPLANATION IS KEY.


 * __Substance/Contention__**
 * I see evidence as a way of proving the validity of your arguments/claims, not claims/arguments themselves. Don't run a chain of evidence and names and expect me to vote for it.
 * Logical arguments are valid in my view, however don't make crazy assertions and expect me to agree with them.
 * Far stretched arguments links to plausibility and topicality must be clear and evident. If you plan on running something unique make sure to explain it well. I enjoy hearing unique and different arguments/perspectives, however make sure to explain the link well.


 * __Argumentation (rebuttal)__**
 * When making extensions don't tell me to extend John Smith 15, summarize what I'm extending and why should I care that your opponent dropped/conceded to this argument. Extensions are meaningless unless you tell me why I care. I will not put in the impacts for you.
 * Don't make the argument "my study is better" or "this argument is not plausible" or "drop this." Give me a reason why. Im not saying i won't vote off argument weighing, but if you don't provide a reason why you opponents argument is wrong or yours is better, I won't do the work for you.
 * Im not looking to blocks to every card brought up, but rather can you effectively refute the argument the card is supporting. Cards are not arguments, but rather back up your arguments validity.


 * __Speaker Points__**
 * On average, I give 27-29 speaker points.
 * to get a 30 in round
 * 1. clearly articulate your words
 * 2. arguments must be well organized
 * 3. word economy
 * 4. Good overall argumentation
 * 5. clear thought process (Can i tell where you are going with what you are saying or is it unorganized and incoherent)

Im a more traditional judge, i never did the activity personally, however that does not mean that i will not be open to hearing different types of arguments such as plans and counter plans. Im not familiar with the particular structures of plans/counterplans; however, I am open to listening and judging these.
 * __Policy like arguments.__**


 * __Policy Arguments I can't Judge.__**
 * Theory: I don't have enough experience to judge theory.
 * Kritiks: Im not familiar with how to judge/the literature behind kritik arguments.
 * Spreading: I see spreading as a harmful aspect to debate with no out of round positive benefits. Spreading will lower your speaks and most likely result in me being unable to flow the round.

I'm looking forward to seeing you in round for a good debate.