Coffman,+Jeremy

I am, for the most part, a tabula rasa judge. Arguments made within the round will be just as they are, regardless of the level of analysis made by the debaters or my own previous knowledge. The two implications you need to draw from this are that I will keep my own knowledge and opinions out of adjudicating, and that I will not do the work for you. If an argument is important enough that you want it evaluated pre-standard, be sure to let me know that. If you provide me a poorly analyzed argument, then I will not likely weigh it heavily when it comes times for me to make a decision. Also, impacts and warrants are necessary. An argument with a sufficient warrant and impact becomes quickly useless when scrutinized by the opponent.

I do not flow drops or extensions unless they are called. So, if the Aff Drops an argument in their 1AR, the Negative fails to call this in the NR, and the Aff picks it up again in their 2AR, then I will flow it over. I will, however, not flow new arguments within the rebuttals unless those new arguments are heavily warranted. I will never flow a new argument in the 2AR, as the Negative does not have a chance to defend themselves. If you want an argument extended across the flow, or extended to refute another point, be sure to tell me and be specific. I will utilize the flow to the best of my ability, unless the round becomes so muddled that flowing becomes useless.

**On Evidence** : I will evaluate evidence, of course. But throwing a card on top of an argument will not automatically validate the claim. I want some logical analysis as to why the evidence applies and the implications and impacts of the evidence. Do not expect to throw a stack of cards at me and assume that your argument is valid. Also, if your evidence is methodologically flawed and your opponent calls you on that, then your evidence may quickly fall. I do not require a heavy amount of evidence in a debate, so long as good logic and analysis can be used in place. Now, if a claim is being made about a real world scenario, then proof will be a little more warranted.

**On Speed**: I do not mind speed. But there is a line between LD speed and CX speed. Do not go into CX territory please. I think speed is a tool that should be used to relate to the audience rather than to crime as many arguments into a constructive as possible. Speeding up sometimes is necessary and I understand that. If you are in the 1AR and you need that extra boost to get through all of your arguments then by all means. Likewise in the 2AR if need be.

**On Speaker Points**: I reward speaker points based upon how good of a speaker you are and how well you present yourself in the round. If you spread, then you will more than likely lose a few points. Constant stumbles and a lack of fluency will cost you points as well, though I am completely understanding of the impromptu nature of the rebuttal speeches. Most importantly, if you are outright rude to your opponent then you will lose speaker points, I promise you. There are more than enough ways for you to express your point and tell your opponent they are wrong without being overly rude. Now having said that, I understand that debate can get a little heated, and I myself am a very passionate debater. And there is a big difference between being loud and passionate and being rude. Please try and stay on the heated and passionate side rather than the rude line. For you and your opponents sake. Also, I do not judge the quality of your argumentation with speaker points, that is reserved for my decision on the ballot. I have no problem saying that the better speaker did not win on the argumentation side of things. Of course, I would prefer if you strive for winning the round and being the better speaker.

//**Things I Look For**//

**Burdens**: First and foremost, I am a big believer in the Burden of Proof and the Burden of Clash, and I want to see both sides attempting to uphold their respective burdens at all times. If a side fails to uphold their burden, rest assured they will lose the round.

**Value/Criterion**: I will weigh very heavily on the standard of the round. At the end of the day I will pick a standard and evaluate based on that. It is very important for a side to win the standard debate. I also like to see arguments linking back to the standard. Impacting back to the standard is even better. Please, do not lose sight of your V/C during the course of the debate, as I will always look back to them when deciding a round.

**Theory**: I am fine with theory so long as it is logically explained, applied, analyzed, and impacted out. Do not just throw theory around and think it will stand. And if theory becomes extremely important, then make sure to label it A Priori so that I can evaluate it as such.

**Philosophy**: I am a huge fan of the old school format of LD where philosophy reigned. I love to hear arguments that deal with philosophy, especially when it applies to the standard in the round. On that note, please do not throw around the term morality without some form of quantifier. I will flow it as morality at face value until your opponent questions how one weighs it, at which point you will be in some big trouble. Philosophy is a great weigh to quantify morality, if such ever needed to be done.

**Kritiks/Plans/Counterplans**: Please, please do not run kritiks, plans, or counterplans when I am your judge. I will evaluate them and do my best to give them proper weight, but remember that I judge by a standard and by the burdens. And it is nigh impossible for any of those three things to fulfill one or either of these requirements.

**How I Decide**: At the end of the day I will look over the flow and see what came out at the end. I will pick a standard for the round and begin to weigh the round based upon that standard, while at the same time seeing if each side has sufficiently met their burden. I will give each issue proper weight depending on its assigned weight by the debaters and the analysis and argumentation surrounding the issue. I will also look at these issues through the lens of the standard that I have adopted, and with this come to see which debater better upholds the standard, and that debater will be declared the winner.