Sowa,+Graham

4 years debating at Grapevine HS (2000-2004) CX
4 years judging (mostly DFW circuit, ask around about me, a good reference is Jason Sykes) CX 1 Year Coaching (University of Botswana BP Debate) 09/10 Experience: judged at UNT Camp

==Theory and Topicality: The debate material should provide for fair chance for each team to access argumentation. Unless argued (successfully) in a different framework these are issues that I would evaluate before other arguments to determine the winners of the round. However, I'd much rather hear a debate about how arguments interact than blocks of theory/topicality.==

==Arguments with impacts (disads, case offense, K): If the comparison between arguments is lacking (i.e. no defined framework(s) for evaluating the debate) I will probably default to determining the probability of the link and consider that against the time frame, probability, and magnitude of the impacts in a cost/benefit analysis. (In arguments where uniqueness is (made) important I will evaluate that before the link)==

==To Win: Good comparison and explanation in the round are essential. Persuasiveness and passion are good ways to help me follow your line of thinking. Using these rhetorical tools show me why you win in your framework and why your framework is better than the other sides. Or just concede the other sides framework is better and win in theirs. A lot of this comes down to comparing the impacts of the arguments.==