Gooderham,+Jeff

Judge Paradigm:

General Evaluation: In evaluating the round, I will start at the standards level and work my way down for the most part. Thus, "a prioris" will likely have no relevance in how I choose to adjudicate the round. Also, I like a strong criterial debate where the clash is very clear, and, subsequently, impacts are given and explained based on that standard. If you choose to use some type of burden to weigh arguments, please explains how the burden functions as a weighing mechanism for the round (otherwise, I will probably be lost on how to use it).

At the end of your final speech (or earlier), I would prefer a clear story and solid big picture analysis (i.e. how the round plays out under both worlds with regard to the standards debate). Without some sort of comparative weighing, I wouldn't trust the sheer strength of an extension or a dropped argument. Moreover, strong big picture-type analysis should most likely include voting issues or crystallization points to clarify how I should evaluate the round.

Additionally, it is imperative to spend time in the 1AR on something if you plan to create a big impact with it in the 2AR. Otherwise, there is a decent chance it will not be flowed. Plus, stregically, it is super-shady to divert the negative's attention to random argument you have no intention of going for while giving a sentence blip on your major offense.

Theory: As a newer judge, running loads of offensive theory arguments to abuse the affirmative is probably a bad choice in front of me, even if it seems strategic. In the event that there is blatant abuse which can not be corrected without a theoretical objection, I am open to the argument. Also, if you do fall under the category of "must use T," please go as slowly as possible and give a very clear abuse story.

Speed/Delivery: I am relatively new to national circuit debate in general, so tremendous and unjustifiable speed is //strongly// discouraged. Furthermore, if you see me looking at the ceiling or not attempting to flow, I would strongly recommend slowing down (unless, of course, you would prefer I don't flow/evaluate your arguments).