Ward,+Anna

I debated for Monte Vista on the local and national circuit and graduated in 2008. I wrote the following paradigm a couple of years ago, but all preferences should be the same with the exception of speed: I probably can't flow as quickly as I could before.

As a judge, I don’t have a view on whether or not the resolution should be evaluated as a truth statement or in terms of comparative worldviews; I think that that is up to the debaters to establish in-round. I don’t have a preference in terms of arguments that are run – I never ran a lot of critical cases or kritiks while in high school but understand the literature and think that it’s fascinating, so I’ll be open to those types of cases so long as they’re clearly articulated. (You should have some way in which I can evaluate the round, though, whether it’s by traditional standard or something else.) If I can’t understand the argument, I won’t vote on it, so do your best to make it clear what the position is. I can handle a good degree of speed (if I’m not flowing, you should probably slow down), understand theory and am willing to vote on it. Theory that no longer serves as a check on abuse that is used instead to abuse your opponent, however, will nuke your speaks. I try to minimize intervention when necessary – I won’t presume unless a warranted argument about why I ought to presume is thrown out there.

In terms of speaker points, I usually start at 28 and fluctuate based on how the round goes.

If you have more specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round. In a nutshell, though, my paradigm can be summed up as follows: I like smart arguments, so be smart, make strategic choices, be polite, and have fun.