Rawley,+Laurel

Laurel Rawley High School: Manvel High School High School Debate Experience: Cross Examination/Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas College: University of Houston Current Debate Team: University of Houston Rounds judged this year: 0 Years Judging: 2 Current Job: UH Policy Debate Office Assistant and TA

Paradigm - The more logical approach is better with me. Statistics and data to support arguments are preferred over "he/she said this". On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 6 Favorite Debate Argument: Least Favorite Argument: Ks and/or anything that is illogical Won't vote on: Not that I can think of Other broad preferences: Just be logical

Specifics - Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high) Topicality 3 Theory 2 Disads 3 Counterplans: 3 Kritiks 3

A good debate about Topicality If the Neg proves the Aff is outside the scope of the resolution, then I'll vote neg. However they shouldn't just rely on the argument that violating topicality is abusive to the Neg. Instead, they should focus on how they are violating topicality A good debate about Theory: If it makes sense A good debate about disads: If the disads outway the advs, then neg will win A good debate about counterplans: It has to be competitive and feasible A good debate about Kritiks: Just has to be logical

Other specific argument prefences: N/A

Other Things: Speed: 1 Their flow: 3 Comments on flowing/speed: I hate spreading. However I know it is necessary for some teams to do it. If you choose to spread, slow down significantly for tag lines/arguments. The rest you can spread.

Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated- 7 Factors for speaker points: Enunciation & ability to understand the speaker as well as organization and fluidity are good.

Other: N/A