Taylor,Scott

I have been judging policy debate for the last two years. I did not participate in debate during high school or college, translation- I am a lay judge. Now before you sneer me, please continue to read my philosophy.
 * I. Introduction**

I have a decent working knowledge of the 2010-11 policy topic.

Each round is a chance to win me over. I have no preconceived notions regarding the round.
 * II. Philosoph**


 * III. Specific Issues**

Affirmatives should address the topic, while you may be able to convince me otherwise.
 * A. Topicality**

Solid CP's that outweigh the aff can absolutely win me over. Take the time for the line by line and tell the story. CP's done well bring about great rounds.
 * B. Counterplans**

I am open here as well.
 * C. Disadvantages**

Run the K any way that you see fit. If you can convince me your argument is better, you win.
 * D. Kritiks**

Spreading is fine as long as you clearly sign post the points you are going to make before you make them. If your speaking is not clear and I can not understand you, I will call "clear". If you fail to communicate clearly to me as your judge, how can you possibly expect me to make any decision at all? The best round I have ever judged was the Harvard 2009 Varsity Semis. The reason this round sticks out is that the speaker spread the fastest I have ever heard in my 2 years, yet he also stopped, looked over to the judges panel and clearly explained what he was covering. I am a sucker for a clear and crisp speaker every time.
 * III. Speaker Evaluations**