Tomsu,+Scott

When adjudicating debate rounds I want a strong framework set up at the value/criteria level. As the judge, I evaluate arguments through this standard and expect to see arguments warranted and impacted back to the standard throughout the round, especially in crystallization. I have no preference as to whether voting issues are presented during the line-by-line versus having them as a summary. **I'm a crystallization judge**. Also, if you have voters which preclude the standards, explain and warrant why this is the case, why your argument mitigates your opponent’s and how it impacts the round. Don’t expect intuitive connections from me. When it comes to speed I tend to think that I can keep up with most LD rounds, however, if you go as fast as policy debaters you run the risk that I may miss something. Speed is aided by clear sign-posting and organization in rebuttals. Debaters who are merely brisk in their delivery will typically have higher speaking points than the typical speed-reader, but not always. When flowing I make every attempt to flow author's names on evidence used, however, I flow the argument first at the risk of not writing down the author on my flow. I pay attention to those supporting your arguments, however, as a judge I look to arguments being developed first and foremost. Therefore, I prefer sign-posting by the argument being made, not the author's name. Speaker points are usually based on ability to cover arguments, argument selection, and very much so, time allocation. I am somewhat critical on how well debaters perform on all of these areas and will award points based on how close to perfect you are for every category. Additionally, debaters who don't take the activity seriously will see very dramatic cuts in their speaker points. It is important to note that I do not give a lot of credibility to arguments that are just plain non-factual, regardless of your opponents volume of response. If you argue that the Holocaust didn't happen, I will not give credibility to the argument. This is a serious, educational activity and making things up or making ridiculous claims is not productive in my mind. However, don't interpret this as my reason for intervention - arguing that a secret corporation is in charge of the government as part of a vast conspiracy doesn't get a lot of credibility, but well warranted evidence supporting a corrupt relationship between corporate leaders and various political leaders is obviously acceptable. Furthermore, when making an argument, **provide all applicable warrants to support the issue**. Otherwise, I feel you are inappropriately asking for my intervention for an intuitive connection of the argument(s). Do not read theory arguments as part of a shell strategy. Listening to theory arguments without warrant and which do not apply where you then ask for this to be a voting issue means I will likely vote on the theory argument (not something I prefer), but the vote will likely go against you when your opponent points out how baseless the theory argument was. If you make an argument stemming from identity politics for the sole purpose of winning the round, I will be very upset. Lying about your identity and using that lie as an argument to win a round is not intelligent, its simply ugly. Expect my decision in the round to reflect my displeasure with you. I also expect respect for all participants in the round. Don't be antagonistic to your opponent and I would appreciate your respect. If I'm giving an oral critique, don't argue with me - I'm giving you my perception of what I heard in the round. If I got it wrong, it is your fault. Persuasion is about making sure I have the correct perception. I competed in the mid-80's and have judged/coached ever since – while somewhat traditional, I have accepted many progressive components of contemporary debate. If you have further questions, please ask – but be specific about what you want to know. If you have questions or wish to discuss my perception on debate, please let me know. My desire is to be entirely transparent as a judge because I expect you to adapt in order to earn my ballot.