Ricard,+Thomas


 * Bio**: I was a policy debater for Rosemount High School (Rosemount, MN) for two years. I've been judging both policy and LD since 2007-2008.


 * Speed and Delivery**: I don't mind speed, I'll let you know if I can't understand you. In LD especially I usually ask both debaters about speed preferences before the round starts.


 * What to Run**: I usually attend a few tournaments a year. This means I may not be very familiar with the current topic, so it doesn't hurt to fully explain common arguments. This also means that I'm not sick of hearing any certain arguments. If you can explain your arguments in cross-ex and rebuttals then I'll generally take it to be true until refuted. Even if I don't like an argument, the other team/debater can't make it go away by ignoring it.


 * Theory**: I'll allow theory arguments. I'm more interested when a debater has the awareness to explain how theory arguments affect the current round and the activity of debate as a whole. I still think quick theory jargon blips are valid arguments.


 * Decision Process**: Rebuttals should highlight what I should be evaluating. If a winning argument is not discussed in the rebuttal, or it was forgotten in a previous speech, I won't vote for it. If there is interesting/confusing clash in evidence I'll look at the evidence after the round. I'll generally believe what the debaters tell me to believe, but I will resort to thinking if I have to.