Old+long+version

I am a former policy and Lincoln Douglas debater. I have been judging on the national circuit for about a year. When I am judging LD, I try to judge without any preconceptions of what "should" be allowed to be debated in the round ("tab judge"). Mostly I am looking for effective use of logic, reasoning, and evidence to support your argument that you deserve the ballot. Of course, nobody in real life is a Blank Slate (see Stephen Pinker's book of the same name). Some preferences I have that may affect the outcome of the round are detailed below.


 * The Ideal Round**: In the ideal round, the debaters will spend most of their time arguing about why their framework should win, and repeatedly link their contentions to the framework to explain why he or she should get the ballot. Some occasional theory will keep things interesting, and effective use of CX shows that you are thinking on your feet. The debate will be so close that I feel bad about dropping one side. Speaks will be high. I will have learned something from at least one argument.

Some debaters have different preferences, and I would like to apply the principles of the first paragraph even to arguments I would not make myself. I will judge any argument you make, if I understand it. It is your burden to make sure that I understand it. You can do this by
 * speaking clearly -- speed is OK if I can tell what you are saying -- signposting helps here
 * being organized and connecting your arguments into a cohesive case; don't expect me to connect your dots
 * summarizing the impacts of your arguments including what you think are the top voting issues
 * using "cards" judiciously; I won't intervene unless I have direct proof you are mis-cutting cards, but the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and common sense analytics will probably beat extremely implausible arguments, even those with cards.
 * don't use theory just to get out of clashing with your opponent. Theory in general is fine, just don't let it be an excuse not to debate the issues.
 * Kritiks are another area where I think many debaters rush headlong without considering the applicability to the discussion at hand. Make it clear to my why your K is a winner.
 * Plans, Counterplans, Disadvantages, PICs: Explain them well and I'll vote on them. As is the case for any argument, if I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.


 * In general prefer fewer, better arguments.**

I'll aim to give the better debater around 28 speaker points. Some things that merit reductions in speaker points are:
 * personal attacks on the opponent or general surliness;
 * lack of clash
 * argumentation or evasiveness during cross: questioner should ask straightforward questions and the opponent should answer them concisely.
 * constructing bad arguments, including, for example, using cases you did not write yourself without understanding them

On the other hand, if you are the on the level of the best speaker at a given tournament (based on the best I have seen at previous tournaments), I will be glad to give you a 30.