Powell,+Ben

I debated at woods cross high school for three years, I have Judged and competed in PF and LD. I am good with progressive speaking so long as it remains clear what you are saying. I like theory so long as it stays on point and is developed to support your view of the resolution 1. does it make since. 2. Is it relevant to the resolution. 3. effective defense/offence of your opponents case. 4. Don't drop (your own/your opponents) points or limit there importance by rarely using them in the course of the round.
 * Short:**

What I like to see is the effective use of evidence and logic in order to support your case while addressing your opponents. Your case must function to support your view of the resolution, any contentions sub points etc. will carry significantly less weight ,if not, it will be disregarded when awarding points and the winner of the round.
 * Overall:**

To be honest speaking skill does not weigh in to my decision how you say something means less to me than what you say.
 * Speaking Skills:**

All evidence that are used need to be linked to your case in-order to establish why it should be considered when deciding who wins a round or not. failure to do so either negates the card all together, or if you just leave the link there for me to establish my self but it is some what an obvious link it loses some value in the round as it is your job to make your case convince me not mine to fit your cards to your case and then to the resolution.
 * Evidence:**

I can follow most logical extrapolations from the resolution and in your evidence, however excessive extrapolation in order to find final impacts is unappreciated unless you provide a link that leads directly to the impact or gets closer in-order to make the extension to that impact reasonable. example: (and I know this sounds absurd but I've actually seen this one tried before) "If we continue oil subsidies in the US, there is a guaranteed outcome of nuclear war in the middle east"
 * Logic and Reasoning:**

Now this example is a tad extreme, but even with this example if you prove proximate cause, by providing substantial evidence as well as reasonable links to the resolution I will except it. (proximate cause must be shown in conjunction with the resolution not an extension with in your case regardless of a link)

false dichotomy as well as habitual misuse of evidence is the reason I award the most loses.