Ragno,+Joseph

I tend to favor a case based on a logically chosen value and value criterion that can be argued by both sides on equal ground. A case can have very good support, but if it's supporting an inferior choice of the value criterion, it will be harder to win my ballot. I consider poor choices to be either illogical or obviously self-serving.

Resolutions that call for justification seem to call for more moral based arguments and less for results-based or realism based arguments. The opposite may be true for resolutions that call for "should" or "ought."

I also find it hard to process speach that is faster than 160 words per minute. Thus, a 6 minute aff speech that is greater than 1,000 words is likely to have the following 2 impacts on me: 1) I may suspect the speaker is purposely spreading. I may regard this as devious, and I may not award a ballot for devious actions. 2) I may not be able to fully process what is being said. It may be logical on paper, but debates are judged on what is spoken, not what they look like on paper.