Scherr,+Lydia


 * Judging Philosophy**


 * 1.** **My opinions on 'the K'**


 * Aff:** This is policy debate, and I prefer policy arguments. Please read a plan that is relevant to the topic. It's fine to be critical of the topic (and of patriarchy, capitalism, racism..ect), go ahead and include critiques in your plan or permutation of the plan, however verbally condemning the topic and throwing it to the wind is not grounds for a 'W' if I am your judge.


 * Neg:** go ahead and read a Critical argument. Strategically it makes sense, you are making the 2A do more work, and hopefully what your saying actually applies to the Aff. Please don't ONLY read critical arguments, if you have so much to complain about, then you better propose some kind of counter plan that embodies your alternative interpretation.

//Ultimately//: I'm going to vote based on who makes the best arguments, and covers all their bases (i.e. don't completely drop an argument or forget to respond). The above statements are brief guidelines for what kind of arguments I'd like to see in the round.


 * 2. Cross Examination:** use CX strategically, be respectful to your opponent, and humor (tastefully applied) is appreciated. Bickering is not ok, don't do it.


 * 3. Spreading:** Speak clearly, if you are bad at spreading (i.e. gasping for air, sputtering and mumbling), don't do it. It would behoove you to try, and a more tactful choice at that point would be to make Critical argument against the use of spreading in debate.

If you feel this is relevant to how you frame your case in the round, I encourage you to find me on Linked In.
 * My background:**