Sivils,+Amber

My judging philosophy is fairly simple: I vote on what you tell me to vote on. This plays out in the debate round through issues such as:
 * **An argument is only as good as its link and impact.** If you tell me that a response is tied to an argument, you also have to explain why. Furthermore, if you have seven responses to an argument, but none of them carry any impact or weight to the round, you might have been better off with fewer, stronger arguments. If an argument is poorly articulated, not carried into rebuttals well, or lacks an impact/link, it will most likely end up crossed from my flow.
 * **Theory and speed are both fine**, as long as you remain clear in you diction as well as your rhetoric. Don't venture into a world of theory that you cannot explain. That being said, topicality, k's, counter-plans, and most other theory based arguments are perfectly acceptable in my book. That being said, please only run theory abuse arguments if there is actual theory abuse in the round. If your speed is not matched with clarity of your words, I'll say "clear" once audibly. If it becomes a problem again, I will drop my pen and wait for you to look up.
 * **The paradigm you frame the round with is what I will use to evaluate the round with**. I tend to prefer a comparative evaluation, but I will listen to the framework you present and evaluate the round based off of the arguments.
 * **Miscellaneous Details:** I tend to be nicer with speaks (: If I find you rude, I reduce points in increments of two. I presume negative (status quo), but will always be open to hearing arguments for the opposite. I will not try to hide facial expressions. If I think an argument is good, and you've been looking up from your notes, you'll generally be able to tell.

Good luck and have fun (: