Berdnik,+Chris

As I generally find long-winded judge philosophies offensive - it is supposed to be about the kids, not the adults - I will be brief:


 * Policy: **

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. If anything, I am "flow-centric"; 2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will likely suffer; 3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.


 * Lincoln Douglas: **

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. If anything, I am "flow-centric"; 2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

For clarity sake, by tabula rosa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.