Dressel,+Chris

Background: I debated policy for Carl Sandburg High School (suburban Chicago) from 2000 to 2004. As my high school no longer participates in policy, I primarily judge LD. While I have no experience debating LD, I have judged countless LD rounds over the last four or five years. I like to have a clean flow at the end of the round. It makes picking a winner easier and less arbitrary. To this end, try to do a careful line-by-line and signpost often. Speed is generally fine, unless you are unclear. Substantively, I tend to prefer policy-oriented arguments to abstract philosophical arguments. Similarly, I like it when debaters make generous use of evidence. Qualifications debates are under-utilized, I think, as it is very common for people to read evidence from bizarre websites and othe unreliable sources. While I say I prefer policy-type arguments, however, it's just a tendency. I will vote on whatever the debaters tell me to vote for, including critical arguments, theory, etc. In all cases, though, the impacts of your arguments should be clearly articulated and weighed against your opponents impacts. Good debaters are good at explaining why the arguments they are winning are the most important arguments in the round. A couple of pet peeves: First, if you truly have nothing else to say, it is find to just sit down. There is no benefit to aimlessly wandering through the flow a second time. Second, I intensely dislike the practice of beginning the AC or NC with a quotation from a famous dead person, such as John Locke or Benjamin Franklin, followed by a recitation of the resolution. I have never once voted for someone because he or she began the debate by saying that "those who would sacrifice security for liberty deserve neither," or whatever.