Karcher,Ellen

LD: (Traditional Judge) I served in public office and am therefore well aware of what quantifies a legitimate speech and or argument. __I prefer traditional rounds with real world applicability__. If you enter the round and consider spreading, running theory when an abuse has not occurred, and or running Ks then chances are I wont vote for you. However, I do encourage creativity so if you find yourself compelled to run an off case or some extremely unique CP then do so but cautiously. When judging a round these are the following things I prioritize when voting; 1. Which debater won the value clash and maintained a strong value or link chain. Every contention should go back to the value framework and if your case lacks this then the round will probably lack a sufficient clash as well 2. Whether or not the debater shows an understanding of the material- I do not like when students simply read off of cards claiming it serves as an argument but fail to establish a clear understanding of the card, or fail to apply the context of the card to realistic situations. The only way the argument will have any weight is if the debaters themselves understand what the card says and its importance 3. Impacts- keep them rational though. 4. Education. Creativity is a factor in this, but I value education in the sense that I want to leave the round feeling as though I have learned something new. Teaching me something new will not be achieved through spreading. 4. Most importantly, have fun.

As a side note I will only give speaker points below 27 if I believe that the debater has behaved inappropriately.