Thomas,+Kathy

I am an adaptable judge. I do not have a preference for any particular style and as a result of my background I am comfortable with both traditional and progressive approaches. I am comfortable with many styles of debate and as a result I don’t mind critical frameworks, policy approaches or empirics. Theory is fine just make sure there is abuse if you run it. I believe there will always be a need to weigh an impact / criterion that is easily measured and evaluated but I don’t decide based on quantity or arguments won but based on the quality of the arguments.

Having said that, I believe the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution and I believe the negative has the burden of creating clash. Each debater is responsible for more than defense. If offense is not provided I don’t believe you have done your job. To achieve this, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion that should act as a mechanism to evaluate the issues in the round. I see the criterion/standard as the means to achieve the value or goal.

I believe it is your job to point out voters to me to evaluate. Issues of fairness and education should be evaluated as voters.

I am fine with speed but I will say clear once and then twice and after that I will put down my pen and what I catch I catch and that is it. Annunciation counts more than speed. I do not appreciate rude or condescending debaters.

I don't care if you use flex prep, but during the 3 minutes of CX I prefer that this time be dedicated to just asking questions and resolving inconsistencies. There is no need for disrespect in the round or with one another. I will use speaker points to punctuate this point. At the end of the day you should have as much respect for the person across the aisle regardless of performance.

I am happy to give oral RFDs at the end of the round and you can ask me anything before the round begins but not once it has begun.