Crider,+Kell

I am a lay judge who was been judging mostly LD since my high school daughter began competing in 2011. I have never debated and I take LD ballots every chance I get. I much prefer LD rounds to the judges’ room, and I’ve been known to judge 8-10 rounds per tournament.

My philosophy:
 * Strong, clear, and pertinent links to the V/VC weigh heavily in your favor whether it’s regarding claims, warrants, impacts, or extensions, i.e. tell me why what you’re saying matters
 * Not every contention is created equal: well supported contentions outweigh numerous, weak, and/or dropped contentions
 * I’ve been coached by debate students to heavily favor pertinent warrants and clearly articulated impacts
 * Given equally well presented, supported, rebutted, and defended points (admittedly a rarity), I vote the option that makes the most rational sense in the real world
 * Any philosophy I studied in school is long lost to everyday life, so I need a clear explanation of more exotic arguments, although I'll find even that ineffective if it's communicated to me or your opponent in a condescending or superior tone
 * Although I’ve been highly entertained by a handful of kritiks, I have yet to vote for one
 * I’m still learning debate jargon and terminology, use with caution
 * I cannot vote for you if I cannot understand you, so only speak as quickly as you think I can follow (which varies from speaker to speaker, depending on enunciation and inflection); although I will say “clear” or “speed” if you’re losing me, know that speed kills and I won’t say either a second time
 * Clear tags work in your favor, especially during rebuttals when half my battle is identifying which arguments you’re responding to in my flow
 * It doesn’t take long to get familiar with most arguments after one tournament, so creativity is often rewarded
 * It is at least as important that *you* understand your argument as it is that I understand your argument, critical thinking is a must and you have a great chance at my vote if you're never caught flat-footed on your own case
 * Voting points are highly recommended, it is at least as important that *you* know why you’re winning as it is that I know why you’re winning
 * I want to see your face when you’re speaking and not the top of your head, the back of your computer, or the back of your prepared speech; looking and sounding like you actually believe your own argument always helps
 * I give out a lot of 27s and 28s for speaker points, rarely award 25s and 30s, and I believe argument outweighs presentation so I generally have a low-point win at any given tournament; speed and lack of civility will drop your speaker points as well as your chance at my vote