Kessner,+Lawrence

__Background__: I am a parent affiliated with Walt Whitman High School in Maryland who has been judging LD for two years.

I want a clear decision calculus and will vote on the argument most clearly impacted/weighed back to the won standard, with the following considerations:

__Pre-standards__: I prefer arguments linked to some standard, but will vote on a pre-standards argument if the argument and the reason as to why it is pre-standards is very well-warranted and clearly explained as a reason to vote.

__Speed__: I prefer rounds that are not especially fast, but I will try to keep up. However, I will not be able to flow everything if you are incredibly fast, so if in doubt, slow down. I will not dock speaker points for speed, but if I don't flow an argument because you're going too fast, there's not much I can do about it. I will dock speaks if you are incoherent.

__Theory__: I'd rather substantive, topical debate, but if there is //extremely// clear abuse, theory can be justified. I will only vote on theory if it is very well-warranted and you give me an very clear reason as to why this a voter, a reason to throw out the argument, etc. Also, if you don't explain why theory comes before other arguments in the round, I won't assess it first. If there is no abuse, or if the theory is badly explained, I won't vote on it.

__Kritiks/Alternative Case Structures__: If you run a Kritik or a case without a standard, etc., I will only vote for it if you clearly explain how it interacts with the other arguments in the round and how it affirms or negates. Also, it is easier to flow/comprehend stock arguments than critical theory, so if you run a Kritik, you should probably slow down. I was a philosophy major and am capable of understanding what you're talking about, but it's your job to make it clear and show how it interacts with the resolution and other arguments.

__Jargon__: I know basic jargon, but don't say things that sound ridiculous. If you have doubts about how common the term you're using is, don't use it and just explain what your argument is in simple terms.

__Crystallization__: You should be giving me some sort of decision calculus. You can do it as you go or at the end of your last rebuttal, just make it clear where I'm voting first and why I'm voting there.

__Speaker Points__: I will generally start around a 27, and go up from there for great argumentation, control of the round, a clear and well-articulated decision calculus, etc. I will lower speaks for incoherency, rudeness, and illogical or poorly warranted arguments.

In short, make smart arguments and tell me how they function in the round.