Blasi,+Laura

When I judge a round I am interested in the resolution we are addressing, each competitor's assertion of values, and the clash between debaters. I am especially drawn to rounds where I am intellectually engaged and convinced by the AFF or NEG position at the end of a round.

I have intermediate experience as a judge cultivated over the past ten years, but I have never been a coach or a competitor. I have judged at both the state and national levels. I understand theory but do not appreciate Kritik in LD. Speed is not helpful for me as a judge. I need to hear the values you are advocating for - and your criteria, proof, etc. If I can't hear you I won't be able to judge you.

In LD - as you know - competitors should be engaged in values debate, so the values and related claims and warrants are key. I also listen for the evidence that you cite in support of your claims. Regarding values definition, as I listen I will ask myself if the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the resolution and on what basis (universal, moral, social, political, historical, legal, etc.) I will listen closely to your criteria for evaluating the resolution.

In your argumentation I will listen for proof, organization, extension, clash, and rebuttal. You will want to aim for language, tone, and emphasis that are appropriate to persuasive communication. A summary with the identification of clear voting issues at the end of the round is helpful. Sign posting is also helpful and I appreciate any road mapping offered during the round.

Overall - I hope you have fun and and that you are respectful of others in the round.

 March 2016