Curtis,+Henry

I was a policy and LD debater for five years ending in 2008 and I've been judging mostly LD since I graduated.

For LD: I am absolutely fine with any critical or dense philosophical issue. The same goes for theory and whatnot. I believe that an argument is an argument, no matter what it is. Therefore, whatever the debater feels like running, I'm more than happy to listen. That being said, I need things adequately explained for me. Treat me like I'm a five year old when explaining any link stories, framework issues, or theory implications. The better explained something is for me, the happier I am, which translates to better speaker points. All this being said, don't assume having me for a judge means the round is a free-for-all. One of my biggest pet peeves is debaters trying out 15 different disads with horrendous link stories just because I say that I have a policy background. I'll be happier if a negative runs a smart, clean, and simple strategy instead of just throwing a bunch of terrible arguments at the wall to see what sticks. As for other random nit-picky things, I'll vote for RVIs if they're explained and justified well enough. Just saying "RVI" won't do it for me. Tell me why its an RVI and why it matters to me. For extensions, I need more than just tag and cite. If you just give me the cite and a one sentence blip about a piece of evidence, I won't look at it unless it is 100% cold conceded. If there is even a tiny shred of defense on the card, tough luck. I need a semi-detailed explanation of the warrant of the evidence and how it relates back to the framework/what it does for you strategically. I'm fine with speed, but if you sound terrible, I'll let you know. If I can't clearly flow what you're saying, I'm probably not going to use it in my decision. This counts double for extensive frameworks and theory. Don't blaze through quick subpoints and lists. If I don't have the nuances of the argument, I'll be less inclined to vote for it.

Overall, my ballot requires a good story. Give me a clear explanation of how the round breaks down, what I'm looking at, why you're right and your opponent is wrong, and why I'm voting for you. The perfect RFD ought to be a direct quote from your rebuttal. If you have any more specific questions, ask them before the round and I'll be happy to answer.

For Policy: Essentially the same thing as above. I am totally fine with whatever argument gets introduced into the round as long as it is well explained and makes sense. For some specifics, I have a comparatively low threshold for T. If I have a good definition, at least one good standard, and a clear reason to vote, you have my ballot. That being said, few things make me as upset as when T is run strictly as a time skew. Don't run it just to waste time.

All this being said, any policy debater who has me in the back of the room should know that I am primarily an LD judge. Because of this, I probably don't know all of the hip and trendy topic-specific phrases and acronyms. Keep things clear for me and I'll be a happy man.

Recent edit: Apparently policy has changed a lot since I last judged, so I guess its time for an update. Like I said above, I judge primarily LD, so I'm not too familiar with topic specific literature and whatnot. Since I'm mostly in LD, I'm not very familiar with the new K strategies either. By not very familiar, I mean that it'll be incredibly easy for me to get completely lost if you don't break things down as simply as humanly possible. This isn't to say I don't want you running one off K strats in front of me. I'll admit, I'm more comfortable with traditional strats, but I'm more than happy to listen to something new. That being said, storytelling is absolutely critical when I'm judging, especially if its a very technical K. Spend a significant amount of time explaining the story of the K, the role of the ballot, etc. I've made a few teams pretty unhappy in the one or two tournaments I've judged policy at because I don't like voting for things I don't understand. Help me to get what's going on, and I'll be a happy camper.