Legrand,+Roger

I debated for four years, two at Robert E. Lee H.S. and then two more at Winston Churchill in San Antonio, Texas. I graduated in 2006. I debated both locally and nationally, and am currently attending the University of Texas, set to graduate with degrees in linguistics and economics.

I try to judge rounds using some sort of comparative mechanism. To win my ballot, clearly articulating the comparative benefits to your position as opposed to your opponents is the easiest route. This can be down by linking impacts back to a standard, weighing, or other mechanisms. I am not picky and will be happy with anything that allows direct comparison of the different arguments.

That said, there are some arguments that I find more and less persuasive than others. While none of these things are blacklisted so-to-speak (as in I will still vote for them), run these arguments at your own risk.

First, I either don't understand or don't like the way "burdens" are currently being used as a checklist, where their fulfillment is sufficient to justify my ballot. Since I have to vote for one of the two debaters no matter what I do, I would prefer if arguments were situated around a more comparative center.

Second, theory arguments should be flowable, so to speak, and this often requires a more elaborate structure or at the very least changes in vocal delivery. I can't flow 8 consecutive theory standards that are all a sentence long. Sorry. Moreover, I prefer theory arguments in terms of ground gained and lost than in terms of fairness or education. Also, unlike some judges, I really like voting on T because it is way easier than other arguments to adjudicate, but T for the sake of gaming is also fine.

I am normally pretty underwhelmed by resolutional kritiks, but otherwise I am not uncomfortable with Ks, C/P or "off case."However, I will NOT EVER vote for a K without an alternative. I promise to vote them down 100% of the time, proactivily and without a second thought. This is the only part of my paradigm that I am unwilling to deviate from

That said, I am pretty comfortable with speed. There are very few times that rounds are too fast for me, but they are very often too unclear. If you decide to use speed and it becomes unclear, I will yell clearer the first time, and will take out future infractions on your speaker points. Also, I am going to be more impressed by a debater who specifically answers their opponent’s case, than one which reads a giant number of off case positions.

I have recently had an epiphany about speaker points, while I use to give around a 26 average, I think now-a-days I average closer to a 28.5+.

Finally, when I cannot otherwise adjudicate a winner, I default affirm, unless otherwise told.