Cass,+JP

I have been judging LD debate for about three years in Colorado and have about 100 rounds of experience.

I prefer traditional core value/criterion clash, slow speak. The round will go to the strongest link debater with high level technical skills as I am heavy on the flow. I expect clear framework throughout and voters in final rebuttals.

Avoid CX approaches including Topicality, Counterplans, Disads etc. I have a degree in philosophy from St. Johns so kritikal arguments are OK if run with a lot of specificity at the link level.

I appreciate professionalism and courtesy. Any other questions, feel free to ask before round.

UPDATE: At Glenbrooks 2014, I have observed 2 flights fast speak, and judged 1 flight per my paradigm. Please note the following additional points that I will be integrating into my paradigm:

I like to see grounding in philosophies and philosophers, authorities and references, or evidence - or a combination; any entirely theoretical approach would have to be very skillfully and persuasively articulated.

I will consider a debater who can persuasively construct a more implicit value approach than traditional framework.

Kritics would also have to be addressing value/s in some respect, and engaging in clash.

In after-round disclosure, please demonstrate good communication skills by addressing any issues as polite questions.