Emerson-Kramer,+David

I participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years in high school and have judged or done part-time coaching intermittently for the last seven years. I went to the Tournament of Champions twice and broke to quarter finals my senior year (2001). I am currently pursuing a Juris Doctorate. I normally judge LD.
 * History**

I'm fairly old-school. I like clear, plain language and many of the policy-style arguments that have crept into LD debate since I graduated are foreign to me. That doesn't mean that I won't vote on them, but it will be the duty of the debater to explain them. I am open to any argument of any type including theory or kritik but I will never make the logical links for you, every step in an argument must be explained. I will not vote for arguments that I cannot understand.
 * Overview**

Most debate on the Value of a case is fairly poor; it's difficult to build a cogent argument about the superiority of morality over justice in 3,000 pages, let-alone 30 minutes of debate. If your values are mostly the same, please acknowledge it and move on. Criterions are far more important to me and I enjoy a good debate on the issue. If you are going to place burdens on your opponents, please sign-post carefully and preferably give me the burden in the first few seconds of your rebuttal. Note that a statement is not a "burden" unless you provide argumentation. "X must show Y" is simply an arbitrary assertion unless it has some meat to it.
 * Values & Standards**

I prefer rhetorical skill and vocal control to speed, but I'm comfortable with it. As long as you are properly enunciating there won't be a problem. However, a human being is not a machine and you always run the risk of something being lost between the cracks when you speak too fast.
 * Speed**

I will not determine where your arguments in your rebuttals go for you. If you want me to flow your arguments, tell me where they go.
 * Signposting**

Cross-Ex is probably the most under-utilized and most powerful tool in your debate arsenal. For a clever debater, cross examination represents an opportunity to have your opponent destroy their case for you. Please take advantage of it. However, //PLEASE// be respectful. Unless you plan on working in divorce courts, being a jerk won't get you very far. The most succesful professionals know how to advocate without making it personal. Feel free to be funny or confrontational but know where to draw the line. If you can't imagine saying something to your boss/teacher/coach/mother, don't say it to your opponent. When answering questions, don't abuse the questioners' time by purposely running your mouth to run out the clock. When asking questions let your opponent make a full reply.
 * Cross-Examination**

An aside: you can still win a debate in front of me as a jerk, but your points will reflect that.

An argument is not extended just by saying "extend my argument". I need a claim, a warrant and an impact. I will not do this for you. If an opponent drops an argument on the flow, they cannot pick it up again, that's debate 101 but it is worth repeating. Any time you spend on it is wasted. Feel free to attempt to outweigh the argument, but you cannot challenge it's truth value once it has been dropped.
 * Extensions and Dropped Arguments**

I prefer to vote on issues presented in a crystalized fashion, both affirmative and negative. While I understand the time constraints on negatives in the 2NR, I need to know how to vote and crystalizing will have the greatest chance of swaying me. Please weigh and compare the arguments and address your opponent's position in crystalization.
 * Crystalization**