Rutherford,+Leola

As of 2016 Debate experience: 10 years Speech & Debate competitor (Junior High - College); 7 years as a judge & 4 years coach (Policy, Public Forum & LD) in a local lay circuit.

Judging philosophy: Policy Maker

Most experience judging traditional stock issues style of policy debate with counter-plans and comparative analysis. Being a more traditional judge, I am uncomfortable judging performance or discourse-based debates (from either the aff or the negative). On the neg I like DA's, any CP's, and T. I am also willing to vote on K's, although I am less familiar with the literature, so explain your cards and contextualize them to the round. I am listening for specific links from the negative, running a lot of generic links is less persuasive. On the aff I want to see a topical plan implemented by the USFG. I am willing to vote for affirmatives that use the USFG but have K-like advantages describing the effects of the plan; however, those should be post-fiat. I am unlikely to vote on theory unless there is pretty reasonable in-round abuse (such as 4 conditional positions).

I strongly prefer depth over breadth, and the specificity of your evidence should play a large role in your impact calculus--lots of generic evidence is less persuasive than a few specific cards. I am looking for the traditional "link-brink-impact" analysis and direct clash. I am a flow judge who can understand very moderate speed, but I have not judged many debates on this policy topic, so explaining acronyms and topic-jargon will be important. If I can't understand you I will say clear.

Signposting and clear organization helps comprehension, for your competitors and judges, and improves clash in the debate. Arguments should have a logical flow to them.

Have fun. Be polite. Persuade me