Solice,Leeann

My judging philosophy is primarily tab. I prefer to allow the debaters to have the freedom to select arguments that will generate the most clash in the round. I prefer debates in which the debaters offer a clear framework for evaluation of the round and in which there is clear and organized line-by-line that allows me to evaluate the flow. I do have a preference for very clear tags. In kritik rounds I do tend to prefer clear links. I tend to view topicality as primarily a line-by-line battle - I believe that in order to win T, the debaters who provide the best analysis and refutation on the flow should prevail. I do view T as a gateway issue and will occasionally vote on T when it is argued well. It is my belief that the best debates are not necessarily K debates or Policy debates, but a hybrid of the two - I tend to prefer Kritiks with clear alternatives or policy options that are an outgrowth of a political kritik. In the absence of a differing framework offered by the debaters in the round, I tend to apply timeframe, probability and magnitude to all impacts on the flow including theory impacts, kiritik implications, policy cost-benefit type impacts or topicality voters. My debate experience is 15+ years of debate coaching in Texas. My teams have competed on a variety of local, state and national circuits.