Lehrich,+Carly


 * Judging background**: I was a GSU debater for roughly 3 years and I've judged several high school tournaments and a couple of college tournaments.

I prefer a good time to a bad time, so please don't be jerks to your partners or your opponents (or me). Clash reigns supreme - I'd rather a round that weighs scenarios and impacts any day over a repetitive laundry list of your card authors. (Obviously that's not the same as failing to cite your evidence. Please don't forget to cite your evidence, just don't think #Joe Schmoe 2013 is going to mean anything to me. It won't.) I'm a fan of analyticals, both improvisational and planned. Try to answer all of the arguments your opponents make in priority order. I probably won't vote on a dropped link argument if you've already destroyed uniqueness, for example, but if it's a theory argument or an impact argument or even the other team saying I need to vote on X thing you dropped and you legitimately dropped it...I'll probably vote on it. Because it makes my life easier.
 * My Preferences:**

Don't let the other team make my life easier; that's good advice all around.


 * Paperless Debate** – I will have a spare flash with me if something wacky happens with yours, no worries. Hopefully we're all familiar enough with paperless debate by now and it doesn't strain our time, but if you demonstrate new and unusual levels of incompetence sharing evidence, someone's prep will suffer for it.


 * DA** – Link stories and uniqueness and impact calculus, oh my! Why should I care about your disad, please do tell. Aff teams - I find it very impressive and attractive when debaters leverage their case against the DA in addition to whatever they've prepped for the DA, and I distribute speaker points accordingly.


 * K** – Vitamin K all day. I love the K, I am charitably disposed to the K. If you do not understand your own K, do not read your K in front of me because I will either be A) disappointed in you and liable to punish your speaker points if not your ballot or B) confused and therefore some combination of bored/annoyed which is very dangerous for your ballot and tragic for your speaker points. 'Understanding' in this context means you're prepared to answer questions abouthow the K works, why it's better than the plan or the status quo, how your alt solves or why you don't need an alt, etc. I also enjoy schadenfreude so I'm just as happy to see a K argument clowned off the stage as I am to see it win the day, especially under the conditions mentioned above.


 * CP** – Counter plans are cool! Perms are cool! I'll vote on technicalities and I'll vote on the substance of the CP - it's up to y'all to decide how that debate boils down. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round.


 * Theory** – Theory is great! To abuse the saying: there are no small arguments, only small debaters. You'll have to weigh your argument to win it, of course, but I won't discount anything out of hand. Clarity of speech is great here, because I can't care about the argument I can't comprehend.


 * T** – See above re: clarity. I'll pull the trigger on T if you carry it through, and I default to reasonability. Again, feel free to ask me whatever questions you like before the round.