Arroyo,+David


 * Summary-**I like to intervene as little as possible, so the voting issues should be clear on my flow. I don't want to have to spend time thinking about the implications of some impact or what an alternative means post-round. Make the round **crystal clear** to me and explain what your arguements are. I vote on nearly anything with the exception to that rule being Topicality (more on that later). It's not my round and I'm not going to attempt to force the debaters I judge to change their style for me. Make the round what you will just do me the courtesy of making it a clear and interesting round.

What I would **//LIKE//** to see:I don't like to judge rounds that are more about who can read the most the fastest, not that I have a problem following that, the problem is that there tends to be very little analysis in rounds like that. The best way to get high speaks (and the ballot) is to meticulously develop your impacts and link stories etc... I am of the opinion that a debater will tend to say something like this: "The aff links to the disad and because they link the plan causes Nuclear War." (Or whatever impact). In my opinion a good debater will sound more like this: "The aff links to the disad for reason 1, 2 and 3. This will lead into impacts 1, 2 and 3 and the possibility of nuclear war." Basically better debaters, will debate about everything on the way to their terminal impact instead of debating just the terminal impact with little to no explanation.


 * THE SPECIFICS:**


 * __TOPICALITY__**: I **HATE** T debates. Why? They are almost always turn the round into a very boring, technical and painful experience for me. T is almost always a timesuck and that trivializes the arguement. Now, that being said I am not inflexible on this if a team is really untopical or you are able to prove to me that I should be voting a team down based on fairness or whatever you choose to argue then I suppose it's possible. Unlikely, but possible. My biggest pet peeve on topicality is that debaters will argue a loss of ground and abuse and then proceed to run 5 off with T as a blip on top. Doing that will guarantee I'm ignoring that flow for the rest of the round.


 * __COUNTERPLANS__**: I'm fairly indifferent on Counterplans, I will vote on it, if the net benifit is clearly explained and the negative proves to me that the CP is the best option in round. As far as theory on counterplans go, I don't care if a counterplan is conditional, dispositional or unconditional. That's up to the debaters to figure out if that is ok in round or not. If someone wants to argue conditionality bad I'll hear it and evaluate it but at the end of the round if it's not brought up I'm not going to vote or not vote on a counterplan based on it's status.


 * __DISADVANTAGE__**: Disads are fine with me, although I dislike advocating the status quo. Politics disads are a seperate issue I tend to not vote on idiotic scenearios and I'd prefer to avoid hearing them in the first place. When it comes down to evaluating the disad it starts with a good uniqueness, I need to hear why the Aff uniquely causes the impact. A solid link story is important, as is a clearly explained impact sceneario.


 * __KRITIKS__**: Kritiks are by far my favorite arguements in a debate round. So long as they are argued well at every point, Link, Impact and Alternative. If you're going to run a Kritik, run it well and know what you're talking about. While I do like Kritiks, the arguements that boil down to "do nothing" irritate me since it's more of a philosophical disad.

BEST OF LUCK
 * __BEHAVIOR STYLE__**: To be aggressive is fine, to be rude is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be entertaining. **POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS** really annoy me and **WILL** cost you speaker points. Chill out. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point and if you don't cross the line. As far as the language in round, I'm not going to try to censor anyone so long as they are making a point. That being said I expect everyone to maintain some sense of decorum in round.