Kudron,+Joella

I was taught to debate with traditional Lincoln-Douglass values in mind, and so I typically dislike rounds where students try to fit in policy-type styles and arguments. Despite that preference, I am a // tabula rasa // judge. I will believe any stance or position you take, provided that you are able to argue your side coherently. Many judges find it offense when debaters argue values that disrespect human worth or something like that. Like I said before, I do not care if you argue the craziest ideas as long as you can // back it up // sufficiently.
 * General **

I like when debaters have a good values clash. I understand that it is not possible in every round, but I do expect every debater to link back to his or her values (and the rest of their framework) throughout the round. Crystallize at the end!!!
 * Values **

I do not have a problem flowing speed. However, I know when a debater uses speed as a tactic versus using speed because it is necessary. I typically find the former offensive and will drop you one speaker point if I think that is what you are doing. LD debate is about debating morals and values, not trying to fit every single point you found into your case. I generally feel that the supreme debater in a round does not need to use such lowly tactics to win. Speak as quickly as you think you // need // to speak, and I will understand. I will flow as much as I can, but sometimes I stop flowing to think about a point you said; that point will eventually be put on the flow. If I have a puzzled look on my face, I will probably not flow it at all because you are confusing me. If you or your opponent messes up the flow, just try to recover and organize it as best as you can during your next speech.
 * Speed **

Extensions have never been a problem for me, but I will only extend something if it is an ** argument **and // not // a little quip. For example, do not just make a claim to “technically” respond to an opponent’s argument. I will drop your claim if it is not sufficient to overcome your opponent’s series of claims. // You need to back what you say up //, and that will be discussed more in the Evidence section. That being said, do not spread arguments. I consider spreading to be more than three arguments placed on one point. I will probably not flow them. I will know if you are reinterpreting your opponent’s argument, twisting it the wrong way, or if your opponent is doing such things to you. Don’t worry, I will understand and take that into account in the round. Finally, please respond to your opponent's main arguments and rebuttal points; if you don't and your opponent extends, I will assume you intentionally avoided responding because you didn't have a good answer. Don’t be rude. To me, there is nothing worse than a debater who crosses the line between aggression and being a jerk. ** Be respectful or I’ll drop a speaker point. **
 * Extensions and Flowing **
 * CX **

For any statistics or author-specific analysis, be sure to have appropriate documentation and background information. As for carded evidence, be sure that you include the reasoning of the author. If your case is highly specific to a particular region or set of circumstances, this places a larger burden on your opponent—I will be inclined to be satisfied with your opponent if he or she makes thoughtful analytical responses, even in the absence of cards. I actually prefer analytical responses, because it is more reminiscent of traditional LD debate.
 * Evidence **

If you or your opponent brings up new arguments, I will not count them in the round. Do not worry about it. If you think it’s a new argument and you feel the need to point it out, don’t. I have never had a problem seeing new claims or arguments on the flow, and quite frankly you’re wasting your precious speaking time by whining to me about it.
 * New Arguments **

Neither bothers me. Just make sure you make your points // clear //and understandable. These are typically harder to argue, so persuading me to vote for you will take a lot of more effort than a typical case.
 * Theory and Off-Case **

It will always be clearly written on the ballot, along with criticisms and praises. Most tournaments have a no-disclosure or oral critique policy, so if you want to know the outcome of the round or have questions for me, // please come find me //. I am always very willing to disclose or critique the students I judge, and overall it makes you a better debater.
 * RFDs **


 * Speaker Points **
 * 30: **You demonstrate utter control of the round; your presentation is smooth and easy to follow; you are gracious by stating your opponent's arguments respectfully; your synthesis of the round is perceptive; you make substantive arguments in rebuttals; your logic is consistent; you treat words and ideas with a high degree of reverence; your analysis is insightful and impressive; you have modeled the ideal debater—other debaters should watch you in action. You really have to be // perfect // to get this score. I only give it to someone if I think they will win the tournament.
 * 29: ** Close to perfect, just one or two minor things wrong
 * 28: ** Better than average
 * 27: ** You have all the mechanics of a competent debater in your division.
 * 26: ** Meh.
 * 25: ** You have made one or more of the following mistakes: you are difficult to understand; you misinterpret your opponent's arguments to gain an unfair advantage; you don't seem to understand your own case position well; you continue significantly beyond your allotted speech time without minding my hand signals; you make new arguments in later speeches hoping I won't notice.
 * 24 or below: ** You said something extremely offensive, which I will note on the ballot. Or maybe you were just // that // bad.