Sweet,+Christopher


 * __Background__** - I was an assistant coach at Ankeny High School for 7 years where I coached LD, Public Forum, and Congress. Prior to coaching I had no debate experience. I've been away from debate for a year, but am now back as a judge. LD or Congress are the events that I will most likely be judging.


 * __Short Version__** - I make no arguments for you, so I therefore will judge based on what I hear in the round. "Why should I care?" Impact your evidence and arguments. Speed does you no good if I don't get it down or can work through your argument.


 * __Long version__** -

__Case Types__ - Generally I have no preference one way or another, save the following: I seriously dislike the scatter-shot approach. By this I mean throwing so many arguments / pieces of evidence at your opponent that they cannot address them all, so what they don't address you make a voter. While I won't drop you for it, all things being equal I really dislike it. Stronger arguments (fewer) with good evidence. Also... Solid logic.

__What will serve you well__ - Impact things, don't leave them hanging and expect that I will make that leap in logic. Clash! I've judged enough rounds of people addressing their opponents case in a roundabout manner, trying to avoid clash. Grrr... Nuff said. Signpost, please, it makes things easier on me. Link your contentions back to your value / criteria. Voting issues are good!

__Evidence__ - Important, yes. End all, be all? No. Have something to support your arguments, but in the media today I'm only will to give so much weight to one organization over another. Blogs, not so much. At the same time though, don't weigh me down with evidence.

__What not to do__ - This is not a policy round. I've judged one policy round in my time, and that was enough. Therefore please don't do your best impression of a policy debater in your reading of your case. If I can't get it written down, I won't weigh it. It is true that speed kills, unfortunately it may be your hopes of winning the round. Unless there has been a true abuse, please don't run theory. Also not a fan of a priori.

__How I decide__ - If I feel there is not a clear cut winner, I look to the value / criteria debate and which best fit the round and which won out over the other. Realize that just because you tell me that the round HAS to be decided on something does not necessarily mean that I will base my decision on that. Along those lines, you are welcome to claim that you won this contention or that argument, yet realize that I may see it differently. This is not to suggest that you shouldn't tell me what you think you won, please do. Just know that we may disagree on things. So... Voters, help me by telling me what you see as voting issues in the round. If all else fails, I look to voters in the end.

__Misc__ - You need to be respectful to your opponent, failing to do so will lose you speaking points and depending on the severity even the round.

Eventually more will be added, but nothing for the week ending Sept. 25th. (no more updates, I swear!)