Yurcaba,+Josephine

I participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate for 3 years at Pinecrest HIgh School and graduated in 2010. I coached LD for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina from 2010-2011. I now judge for them on a volunteer basis. I'm going to fess-up immediately and tell you that I have not judged any debate this year (2012-2013), and only judged a few tournaments (including Glenbrooks) last year. Don't let this scare you too much! Please continue to read and know that I'm extremely enthusiastic about debate and I embrace (and even encourage) more rapid, "flow" forms of debate.


 * Case positions:** I will listen to any case position including kritiks, PIC’s, dis-ad’s etc as long as it is a promotion of one idea or advocacy. I haven't heard a K in years though, so it might be to your disadvantage to take that position. Whatever case you do run must have proper links, warrants/analytics and impacts. Some sort of standard is needed for weighing as well, although it obviously does not have to be of the traditional value structure organization. I’m not picky about case structures either; I like overviews, underviews, a priori’s etc, but please have them properly labeled.


 * Theory:** I think theory is super cool and interesting, but there must be some sort of abuse present for it to be necessary. It must be properly constructed theory for it to be enjoyable and understandable for me. I like non-traditional standards and don't have preferences as to fairness/education. I do not like complete severance, unless it is necessary for the affirmative because of abuse present in the round.


 * Cross-Ex:** Please be respectful during cross-ex. If it is obvious you're trying to ridicule your opponent, I'll get annoyed with you. I want to see interesting questions (not entirely clarification), as I see cross-ex as a way to begin arguments about to be made in your rebuttal.


 * Speed:** I used to be able to handle most speeds, but I haven't judged more than a few times in the past year, so take it easy. I will let you know if you are not being clear enough. Please slow down when road-mapping, reading tags, names, dates, etc.

Warrants: If there is clash between analytical and carded evidence, I will always look to cards, though I don’t really have a preference as to what you use. Impacts: In the past, I’ve used policy-type impacts more than philosophical impacts, but both are sufficient and interesting to me. Impacts are VERY important to me. Weighing: I’ve learned from experience that judge intervention is most often the result of lack of weighing in debate rounds. Comically, this is where I am sometimes forced to intervene, weighing arguments based on my own knowledge of the information. So please don't let me do this, and weigh arguments to some sort of standard. Extensions: Please extend and impact unrefuted arguments. I think it’s pretty obvious that if something is not extended after the 1AC/NC, I will not consider voting on it. Jargon: I understand most jargon, again, unless you run a K or some type of unique theory. But as long as you’re clear, I should catch on. Your last speeches should be for important arguments and voters. I look for organization and clarity in these more than any of the others. If you must do line-by-line, it should take up no more than the first minute or few minutes of the 2AR or NR.
 * Debate in general:**