Dallara,+Angela

Like most judges, it's difficult for me to describe a rigid, robotic structure by which I can consistently evaluate rounds, since each depends on the specific situation. That said, there are a few tips I can offer to increase the likelihood of getting my ballot.

I like debaters that are passionate, enthusiastic, and creative. I like interesting positions- this does not necessarily mean something critical. I appreciate debaters who diversify their arguments and give me several levels on which to vote for them.

I endorse speed if it actually enhances the quality of the round- just enunciate, especially author names. PLEASE extend the warrant and analysis along with your card, not (just) because I didn't get down the name but because it's a pet peeve of mine. (Please have warrants in your cards…) Other big pet peeves include jargon overload and new 2N/2ARs.

I’m open to any type of decision calculus- whether values, burdens, or other standard. Try to clarify this with your opponent in CX. If necessary, give me an order by which to vote- a priori, off case, overviews, values etc. I try to automatically cross-apply when a response is made to an argument that is in more than one place on the flow. I like analytics and logic more than numbers.

Label your voters (be selective) and show me exactly where they are on the flow. Please be as responsive as possible to the internal warrants of your opponent's case. Be thoughtful of what you say and how you say it- I won’t vote on something I don’t understand the first time around, and I won’t do you the favor of pretending I know what you’re talking about if I don’t.

Speakers: I'm generous to people who are enjoyable to listen to- whether you do this primarily through your presentation or the substance of your argumentation is up to you. I do prefer that you stand for your speeches.

Finally, it should go without saying that you MUST be courteous and respectful of your opponent. Rudeness and ignorance are just not impressive- this applies in terms of both argumentation (ie taking arguments out of context, lying, being evasive, whatever) and actual interaction.

I did Lincoln-Douglas debate during my time at Bronx Science (I'm just out of college), but I haven't judged for about three years. Anything else, just ask. Good luck and have fun!