Wurzman,+Nancy

I have never been a debater, unless you count my debating with opposing counsel in front of a judge as a litigator. I've been judging LD for about 10 years, and I guess I've judged a few hundred rounds.

My chief paradigm is that I am a standards-oriented judge--your value must be a real value, and your criterion must give me a way to weigh it. Arguments that don't tie back to your standards aren't going to hold much sway with me, unless they are either in rebuttal or they are used to support a standard you've otherwise agreed to.

I do not like speed, although I recognize more of a need for it in the 1AR than anywhere else. I do not flow particularly fast, and I would really like to hear and give you credit for all of your arguments--so if I put my hand up, it's a sign that you're going too fast or at least too fast for the clarity of your speech. Slow down or you risk my missing something (or at the very least it will hurt your speaker points).

I'm not a huge fan of spreading, since I think it dilutes the best arguments and leaves less time to flesh them out. If you spread and your opponent drops one of your less important arguments, you're really going to have to convince me that the argument is key to have me consider it a real drop.

Please give me clear voters, and make sure I know how relatively important they are to your case. What I really like to see is actually no more than two voters that tell me the most important reasons I should give you the win (three if you want me to vote on a clear drop of an important point).

I'm less an evidence-oriented judge than most of the classically trained (i.e. schooled in the camps) judges. However, if you are going to use evidence, you must tell me where the evidence came from and why that person/source is authoritative. If you are rebutting your opponent's source with your own, explain why your source is more valid. You must have the complete card available for either me or your opponent if asked. If your evidence is fabricated or the meaning is significantly altered, you can probably figure on not winning the round.

I don't like critiques. Debate the resolution. If you don't like what it says or how it says it, frame the conflict in a reasonable interpretation and I'll have no problem with it.

I really appreciate a debater who shows thought, preparation, and courtesy to his or her opponent. I usually disclose, and I give as much oral critique as time allows. If you have questions, please feel free to ask me--I strongly believe in the educational value of debate.