McCarthy,+Allison

My judging philosophy is very open. Honestly, I don't really want to tell debaters too much about what I like, because I think it's their job to do the work of constructing the framework through which I should evaluate the round and persuading me that this is the right way to evaluate the round. Also, I think its better to run a good argument than an argument you think the judge will like. In principle, I am open to all arguments and I will vote for just about anything as long as you give me a sound reason. I don't like to do the work for teams and I don't like having to piece together an understanding of an argument through a reading of evidence. Stylistically, it kind of bugs me when people just keep burning through piles of evidence and never refer to it again or do anything with it. Additionally, I tend to find people really persuasive who can give an analysis of the big picture and explain how all of the different arguments in the round relate.