Ploetz,+Robert

I am specifically a Lincoln-Douglas judge, but I am flexible with other styles as well. Even when judging other events, I will always tend to vote for the clear and polished team. The point of a debate is to persuade the judge into either affirming or negating the topic or resolution, and if a team is able to do that well, they will receive my vote. In that mindset, jargon that is thrown around during a round doesn't mean much to me unless a team explains it and explains it well. Relating arguments back to case structure is also helpful.

As for LD, I'm not a particular fan of the speed of national circuit. My personal belief is that if you have to speak quickly over your words to fit your entire case into six or so minutes, your case structure is most likely redundant and probably confusing.

I believe that the value and value criterion are the most crucial parts of the argument. If your value is justice and you never link anything to justice, you will not receive my vote.

As for evidence, I think that it is definitely not necessary, since LD is a logic-based debate, but sometimes a few key statistics can help boost your case's credibility. Cases that are entirely evidence aren't true cases at all, since LD is about what will create a utopia, not what isn't working in the world right now. There are exceptions to statistics, of course, as I've mentioned earlier, but I believe that it is important to remember that LD is supposed to be the opposite of policy debate.

Generally, I will vote for the debater with the more relaxed tone. There is a definite difference between a debater urging me to do something rather than commanding me to do something. The debater with higher speaker points will most likely be the victor. I am generous with speaker points, and I try to give between 25-30, but I rarely give thirty unless the speaker was truly commendable. I do not give lower than twenty-five unless the debate was disrespectful or irresponsible.

A key point to any debate is voting issues. These are especially important because the clash between the opponents may be so well-matched that the closing arguments are the only tie-breaker. I make sure to respect that the affirmative may have a slight advantage during the 2AR, since many think that "the last speaker is the one that stays with me the most." This is not true. While it is inevitable that the affirmative is sometimes the better debater, I make sure to acknowledge the negative's key speech, the 2NR. I believe that this is possibly the more important speech for the negative, since it is his or her last chance to speak.

Though I am not partial to critiques, I will vote for them if they are done well.

I will disregard any new evidence brought into the 2AR, 2NR, and the 1AR that attacks the NC (not the 1AR that attacks the 1NR). These speeches should be focusing on rebutting and tying the debate together, not creating a completely new case out of cards.

Signposting is the easiest way to achieve my vote. If one debater signposts and another doesn't, it is clear to me which debater will win.

I will acknowledge drops if only the debaters acknowledge them and establish their importance. "My opponent dropped my first contention" is not a solid argument to emphasize a drop. An acknowledged drop will affect a case negatively, but if the opponent covers it well, I can still vote for the other debater.

Overall, I believe that if a debater has clear, concise pacing and a polished manner, he or she will win.