Shepherd,+Jeremy

I am a huge fan of LD, both as a sport and as an effective learning tool. I participated in LD in High School and have been judging TFA/UIL tournaments regularly since 2007. Debate gave me a lifelong love for philosophy and the art of rhetorical exchange. I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and, though I work in the business world, I still enjoy dabbling in it occasionally. Please note, this does not mean I will vote against an argument due to a lack of philosophical components. (I'm still waiting on someone to run "Worldview Analysis" or "Existentialism.")
 * Introduction **

I tend to vote off of the key arguments as they are identified by the debaters in the round. I am open to any kind of argument, so long as it is clear, logical, and sound. I typically look to the Big Picture in each round, unless persuaded to look elsewhere. I always look for very tight links throughout a case: Evidence--->Particular Argument--->Contention--->Criterion--->Value. I try to keep a rigorous flow in each round.
 * Typical Method **


 * Framework & Arguments **

Many rounds are won or lost here. Your framework should be clear and fair to your opponent. Labeling and signposting are obviously helpful, so please use them. Be sure, especially, that you signpost parts of highly nuanced arguments particularly well. If you're relying on fine distinctions, they should be easily grasped by your audience. Assume your opponent and I have never heard of them before. Some of the best debaters I’ve seen are remarkably straightforward, so debaters should avoid making something more complicated than it really is.

I am looking for a clean, substantive, warranted critique of your opponent’s key arguments/positions. Attacking your opponent’s case with superficial arguments is not sufficient.These usually amount to little more than, “I disagree” statements. Obviously, that's not a valid response to your opponent’s argument(s). As a master debater, you should be able to quickly identify the key arguments (the linchpin/necessities, without which, the argument/case falls) in both cases, defending your own & ruthlessly attacking your opponent's.

Synthesizing/crystallizing are always helpful. Make voting issues clear. Always call attention to dropped arguments, articulating especially, the impact it has on the argument(s), contention(s), or V-C as a whole.

**Evidence** I am more persuaded by arguments with solid evidence. Empirical and/or analytical evidence should provide clear warrants for the claims you are making. Debaters should be prepared to show their evidence to their opponent if requested. Although I do not ask for it often, I may ask to see your evidence or citation.

**Speed** I am okay with speed so long as your opponent and I can flow your arguments (rarely a problem.) I would never vote against someone because of her speed. I do, however, get annoyed by debaters who speed read and then sit down with plenty of time remaining. Please avoid this! I look for debaters to summarize and synthesize complex arguments in straightforward speech.

**Speaker Points** I am usually very generous with speaker points. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, I will typically award the winner 30 points and the loser 29.

**GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY!!!**