Darrow,+AJ

First, some background. I debated for 2 years at the high school level and for another 2 at the collegiate level. My experience is with CX and Parliamentary debates, though I did compete in other events from time to time.

As a judge, I look for arguments to be cohesive and well thought out. Simply reading cards is not enough, as it is your job as the speaker to provide context and to frame the evidence in such a way that it supports your thesis. I consider myself a policy maker, though I will listen to game playing/theory/critical arguments if they are thoughtful and articulate.

I vote from the flow, and I consider it your job as the speaker to make sure that my flow says exactly what you want it to say at the end of the round. Speed is not a problem for me, but many times arguments that are glossed over by the speaker fail to find their way to the paper. If an argument is important enough that you want it to be considered during voting, then you need to make sure you highlight it during the speech.

One final thing; It is better for you to scratch an argument that you don't understand than it is for you to cling to it and pretend you understand. This is a pet peeve of mine, and if an opponent turns your argument because you failed to articulate it well, I will not take pity on you.

If there are any other questions, I am happy to answer them before the round.