Krause,Julie

My standard philosophy with judging is this: if you have a well articulated argument that I can follow and flow, you have good chance of winning. That means speed for speed's sake is a big no-no. I am a fan of theory, **IF** it is presented in a **coherent** way, with original presentation, and not directly off of a card. Cards should be your starting point, not the crutch on which you base your case. I'm not here to judge robots who can regurgitate an argument someone else put together, at the speed of light. That's not debate - it's noise. I am looking for clear, concise points, based on concrete theory. If you can give me that with a fair amount of speed, I'll follow you. I also need to hear you responding directly to your opponent, not just hammering away at your points over and over, hoping to beat us into submission. You will also lose points with me if you get bogged down in an argument over semantics/definitions - ugh, how boring is that!!! Be well prepared to counter your opponent with solid logic. You don't need to lead me around by the nose, so to speak, but you do need to be able to connect the logical dots for me. If you have a "pet philosopher", it's fine to use her/his theory, as long as you do not assume everyone buys into what s/he has to say on the resolution topic. You still need to convince us that the theory is relevant to the topic, AND supports your case. I'm not totally devoted to classic LD structure; again coherence of the argument trumps specific structure. But if you do us classic structure, PLEASE make sure your value is a value, NOT a VC; and visa versa - that's just painful. Finally, be classy - verbally massacring your opponent with what you may call wit and I call nasty sarcasm, however satisfying it may be to you, will NOT bode well for your ballot. If you have as strong an argument as you think you do, you don't have to belittle your opponent - regardless of what examples are currently being set by your elders in the country.