Holmes,+Wendy

I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for the last four years, with one year of LD. The first thing I look for in a round is a solid framework with a compelling V/VC. The impact and weight are important to me. If the weight of your argument casts the resolution in a new and interesting light that makes me question the status quo then I am thrilled. Winning on technicalities is fine, and a good flow is crucial; what I am really looking for is a well-constructed original argument with solid warrants. If the warrants come from credible sources, other than just the Internet, I’ll give those warrants more weight. Tell me why I have to vote for your stance but if you are aggressive and belittling to your opponent then I’m not going to vote for you. In terms of spreading, I don’t mind it at all as long as I can understand what you are saying. My only concern is that I will lose the flow and miss a rebuttal or an extension. Don’t speak in monotone if you’re spreading, use your inflections to signpost what is important. I have listened to some theory; however, it has never been impressive and seems like a cheap trick to win the debate. If you are going to run theory, it would have to overwhelm all other arguments in order to win the debate. In short, theory should only be used to check abuse. Cross-examination is a delight that I can appreciate. This is a great time to show me how quick you think, how clever you can question or rebut. This is a great time to gain speaker points.

I do not let my own opinionated thoughts get in the way of a good debate. Whatever I believe, I base my decisions off the arguments laid out in the AC/NC.