Kulman,+Bradley

Likes: Signposting; smart tags; solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence; weighing and crystallization; well constructed arguments that are on point and do justice to the important topics being debated; and good speaking skills.

Ultimately, the debate should be about two different moral interpretations of the topic issue.

Speed: If I can't flow what you are saying, I can't pick you up. On a scale of 1-10, I can follow you at 6. I will let you know if I can't follow you, but at that point I have already missed something.

Theory: Theory for theory's sake should be avoided, but I will accept theory in a truly abusive situation.

K's: My judging philosophy is traditional and I will not vote on a Role of the Ballot argument. In those rare instances in which I am on a panel judging an out round, try to find a way to throw me a bone to get my vote.

I don't presume for either side and believe that time spent telling me which way to presume would be better spent on the case at hand.

Demeanor: Be respectful of your opponent, the debate and the time we are all devoting. Rudeness and/or ad hominem attacks will result in very low speaker points and will encourage me to find ways to drop you.

I will likely ask to see key cards and the quoted language in context.

Debate Judging Experience: Judged VLD at a number of tournaments during the 2014-15 season and and NLD the previous year. I'm parent of a VLD debater from Hunter College High School, so I am familiar with some of the topic lit.