Judson-Garcia,Julia

Julia Judson-Garcia McClintock High School, Arizona

I have been a LD judge for the past 5 years and work with IE events as well. I consider myself a "Progressive" judge, for the most part.

**Style:** •Speed: No problem, insofar as you're clear. I will let you know if you're not. •Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions. •Finally, be nice. This is supposed to be fun, and there's nothing that bums me out more than rude debaters. I have used the ballot to punish debaters who were particularly rude. I don't do it often, but I would do it again.

**Content:** •Theory: Demonstrable abuse is necessary for me to vote on a theory argument most of the time. I tend to find theory debates to be shockingly dull, and would much rather discuss the issues brought up by the debaters. That's not to say that you should avoid theory necessarily, but definitely consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round. I tend toward a reasonability threshold before a consideration of competing interpretations. •Kritik: I enjoy a good kritik debate. •Topicality: like theory, my threshold is pretty low. If the case is made that the argument at stake is reasonably topical, I'm liable to buy that in most instances. Again, not all, but certainly most. •Most importantly: I'm pretty much open to any argument you want to run, but I expect you to be deliberate about your choices, and to provide me with significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other, and I frankly don't like having to intervene like that. It ruins that whole //tabula rasa// thing that I'm going for. Do your work, so I don't have to do it for you.