Becker,+Uwe

 Round

 I will evaluate the round how I am told to – you can do this by extending clearly whether it should be truth-testing or comparative worlds. However, you must tell me specifically why I should view the resolution in this way, and make impact analysis in the round as to how that means I should exclude/include offense. If there is not a clearly extended method of viewing the round, I will default to comparative worlds, but I will still need impact analysis for me to adjudicate between claims.

 Usually, I start by assessing framework issues. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round, I will fall back to the standard of looking to who links to the winning value best through the winning criterion. Even if you are running this traditional approach, I expect you to tell me to do this at some point in the round. I will try to evaluate what you tell me are the voters first, but if I cannot find anything that is a winner in the voters you have given me, I will have to go digging for something. Making me dig is a sure way to lose speaker points.

 I evaluate arguments by comparing the analysis you give in support of your claim. If I cannot make sense of your analysis, I do not give the claim much weight in the round (if any). If you are simply making an assertion, I give it little weight in the round. For me to care about the argument that you are making, it must be well warranted and it must be impacted within whatever framework you are working from.

 I am not a fan of theory – I feel as though most of the time in debate it is used as a time suck and not really to check back abuse. I default very strongly to a reasonability standard. Theory to me is a claim of a rules violation in the debate. For me to even look at theory, there usually has to be abuse in round.

 Style

 I still like to see some style in presentation. Enunciate clearly. Please speak slowly and stand up - presentation is key to the round and not all that difficult to do.

 Feel free to ask any questions before the round.