McConnell,+Mara

Hello, all. My name is Mara McConnell. I participated in LD debate at Bettendorf High School for 3 years and I currently judge for West Des Moines Valley High School.

I would like to start off by saying that I am a flow judge, through and through; I don't believe in judge intervention. Even if I think an argument is stupid, false, illogical, etc., I will still vote on it if the debater is winning the argument and tells me to vote there. If, in the RFD, I offer criticisms of your case or argument structure, please remember that I am only trying to be helpful and that these factors do not play into my decision of who won the round.

I am okay with moderate speed. On a scale of 1-10, I'd say that I'm comfortable flowing up to a 7. If you have to do the policy double gasp, YOU ARE GOING TO FAST. I don't really like having to say "slow" or "clear" during a round because I don't want to throw the debaters off, but I will (begrudgingly) if you ask me to. Also, if you ask me before round about my speed preference and then proceed to ignore it, you should know that this is only going to hurt you in the end. If you are speaking too fast for me to flow, arguments are going to miss my flow and that may later impact my decision in the round.

So, about theory. I don't mind seeing theory but I never ran it while I debated so I'm not the most familiar with it. I would prefer to hear theory only if there is actual abuse but I accept the fact that today's circuit debate is theory heavy and that I will see it even if there isn't abuse. If you do choose to run theory, I would love if there is actual clash and the debaters aren't just reading shells at each other. Also, you can run presumption arguments if you want, but you should know that I don't presume aff or neg so these arguments will have very little impact on my decision.

I am fine with plans, counter-plans, off-cases etc. and I am fine with all framework structures. However, if you are running a value-criterion framework structure, do me a huge favor and have a values debate. Rounds where the value debate is a wash or where there is little to no argumentation about the value are significantly harder to adjudicate because I'm unsure of what impacts are coming off your arguments and I have no weighing mechanism.

Cross-x should be used for both clarification and strategically. I always pay close attention to cross-x and it hold significant weight in my decision making. For example, say your opponent asks you if