Johnson,+Laurie

Laurie Johnson Phillipsburg and Ridge High Schools 10+ years experience coaching and judging In the current age, I'm considered a //traditional flow// judge within LD arenas. I do recognize the intent of the resolution when considering the arguments. I often lean toward a pragmatic application of the resolution; consequently, I rarely vote or even consider Kritiks and theory arguments unless the affirmative does not provide any clear grounds for debate. You will also need to spend considerable time explaining the K or theory arguments to me, so if you can't do that clearly and concisely, I don't suggest running them.

I do expect and reward debate on values, hence your criterion should provide a clear standard of measurement and be weighed heavily throughout the round. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within that particular context. Therefore, utopian or hypothetical worlds must be warranted as //reasonable// within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. All evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. Speed is at the discretion of the debater; however, I do judge on my flow. If I can’t understand it, I can’t flow it – so please pay attention to my facial expressions and nonverbal responses. I'm not a fan of jargon either, so please explain the concept so I can correctly apply it to your analysis and flow it properly. Again, I stress, the more theoretical the argument or technical the jargon, the more difficult for me to conceptualize and flow which may lead to a misinterpretation of your argument, leading to great frustration for me during the round. The abridged version? I lean toward pragmatic interpretation of the resolutions with strong empirical warrants.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the standards. I do appreciate **clear signposting** throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. I will not give below a 25 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach LD in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. Work with me, so I can work for you.