Strother,+Grant

I am a first year law student (worked for 2 years out of college). I debated for Dowling (JV) (West Des Moines, IA) and CPS (varsity) (Oakland, CA) in high school on the national circuit. The 2010 Harvard High School tournament will be my first significant judging experience; since high school I have judged miscellaneous policy debates like Nat Quals., but no major tournaments.

I have not debated since 2003, which means at least three things:
 * 1) I am out of practice flowing; I have always been fine with speed, but clarity will be important to me especially in early rounds. A smart, fast team would take it at about 80% early on in front of me.
 * 2) I have minimal familiarity with the 2009-2010 topic; I will do my best to brush up on it before the tournament, but I may require a higher burden of proof for some arguments that have become givens over the course of the year (e.g., you may have to explain your DA and K links, or solvency better in front of me).
 * 3) I do not have enough experience to have developed a judging philosophy. I could write about my preferences as a high school debater, but I doubt that would be helpful. Just run arguments that are good and not arguments that you think I would want to hear. The two general principles that I think any judge would accept are that 1) quality of arguments outweighs quantity, and 2) the team that does a better job of explaining why I should vote for them and not the other team at the end of the debate will likely win.

One thing to note is that I was never a good theory debater. I always preferred substantive rounds to theory rounds (including T), but feel free go for theory if you think you can or should win. I'll try my best to follow.

Do not be an asshole. In my opinion, being a jerk makes someone look worse as a speaker and weakens their arguments. That and have fun.
 * Most importantly**