Hartzel,+Britt

Judge Affiliation: NT

The short story is that I want you to explain by the end of the round how I evaluate the round (i.e. explain what mechanism I use to weigh arguments, why your arguments meet that/why your opponents don't and the basic order in which I evaluate arguments); theory is fine, speed is fine.

I don't like Ks but they are fine as long as they are relevant (i.e. develop a solid link story) and explained extremely clearly I will call for evidence after the round if need be.

I don’t like intervening, and by that I mean that I will only vote on arguments in the round as they were explained in round. Now, this does not mean that I won’t evaluate arguments (i.e. I have to compare weighing between arguments are look at how arguments function in the round as they were explained), but I won’t look to out-of-round influences to the decision. Now, this also means that you will have to explain whatever position you are running because even if I may know a lot about the author you are reading, your opponent might not. I would like to hear it well explained. So a long story short, be sure to understand the argument you are running and be able to explain it in your own words (or you could just have some sweet extensions pre-written that explain the argument as well… but that approach would be less advisable than actually getting the arg).


 * If you read a bunch of cards but don't explain their value, they becomes worthless. **I like analytical arguments. If the neg’s evidence doesn’t say anything, or if a particularly damning piece of defense is dropped, there can be zero risk of the other team's argument if you point it out.