Campbell,+Katie

I debated for four years at Ladue Horton Watkins High School (in St. Louis, MO). On the debate side, I competed in LD; and on the events side I competed in duo interpretation, though I dabbled in congress, dramatic interp, and radio. I haven't competed/judged/flowed in almost four years, so bear with me and go a little slower than you normally might. My judging generally comes down to a few points: 1. Most rounds come down to a few key issues. The competitor who identifies, articulates, and defends those arguments best will win the round. 2. Framework, framework, framework. The whole point of LD is the philosophical justification and framework level arguments. You could have the most well-thought-out contention level arguments, but without a solid framework on which to create and support them, you will have a difficult time convincing me you should win. To that end, I'm not really used to Ks and don't like them. 3. Do not assume that I know what you are talking about. It is your burden to explain, defend, and support your arguments with the proper evidence. 4. Lastly, a thorough analysis of what actually happens during the round is significantly more compelling than even the most well-prepared, "canned" arguments thrown in at the last second. 5. Be courteous and respectful, but sometimes a little bit of snark or sass is needed. Remember to have fun, that's why we're all here!