Desonie,+Dana

I am a lay judge and parent of a former LD/current CX debater at McClintock High School in Tempe, AZ. I've been judging LD and speech events for two years. In LD, I like both sides to be topical but I will grant a little bit more lee-way to the neg. I think the topics that are chosen are well thought out and usually there are many interesting arguments that can be made on either side. I will be inclined to vote on topicality but it does need to be impacted out. Keep the T short but strong. Stay away from the heavy duty theory and framework arguments. You can bring it up but do not try to win the round on it. I will vote on a K but it will need to be explained to a higher level and impacted out more than a regular argument for me to favor it. If the aff runs a plan then it is only fair for the neg to be able to run a CP. Make it clear how they are competitive. I appreciate a good summary of voting issues, but please don't try to bully me into voting for you. A little bit of spreading is okay, I mean a little bit, but I need to be able to understand what you're saying. Be nice to your opponents. Most importantly, convince me. I like strong arguments with lots of evidence. I'm trained as a scientist, so persuade me with evidence. It's really cool if you can use something/say something that's different from what everyone else is saying, but I want it to be topical or very strongly linked to the topic.
 * Topicality**
 * Theory and FW**
 * Ks**
 * CPs**
 * How to win the round**