Leslie,+Arthur

 Judging Paradigm—Arthur Leslie III

 I debated on the national LD circuit at Saint James School for four years under the tutelage of Mrs. Michele K. Coody and attended the Iowa Debate Inst. three consecutive years. I studied at Tulane University and majored in philosophy and political science. I have been judging on and off at state and national tournaments since I graduated hs in 2005 and currently work with/coach Saint James LD and Public Forum debaters.

 **Paradigm:** GIVE ME A STANDARD. I don’t care what the standard looks like—e.g. a traditional value premise and criterion discussion or some sort burdens discussion etc…—it just needs to be clear and warranted as a standard. With reference to some specific areas… I don’t mind critiques and generally both like and enjoy them if they are well-executed. As far as theory goes… I don’t have a problem with it if it is well run. At the same time I would prefer not watch and entire round that is just about theory. That being said it’s your debate round, run it if you think it is best etc. I don't care whether you speed--if and only if you are intelligible. [__**I am not a difficult judge to read in a round if I’m lost I will be noticeably turning papers about**__.]

I studied philosophy and love Continental Philosophy in particular and think that when used correctly post-modern approaches to issues can be examined in a great number of LD Resolutions. A primary aspect of debating well is being familiar with the authors whom you cite & what they have to say.

 As far as rebuttal speeches go. Please signpost, impact your arguments and WEIGH THEM. I am generally well read on the topic literature and philosophy in general, and **I HATE when debaters abusively cut evidence.** I will not be happy if you actually misquote or misrepresent an author’s intent, and if your opponent points it out and does the least bit of weighing with it I am willing to give him a great deal of latitude. All of that being said I will not directly intervene in my RFD.

 The standard/framework is a core point of examination in my RFD… Please don't leave me without a standard/framework--up the creek without a paddle so to speak--because then I have to not only figure out what the standard should be, but I also have to comb through my flow looking for which arguments I think are material to it. I usually disclose, and I prefer to give oral critiques—should time not permit an oral critique immediately following the round __please find me later so that I can give you one__. I usually spend a great deal of time going through casing, how you use evidence etc.... and more than likely tell you what you specifically can do to fix or improve your position/strategy—a good portion of the time I may give you specific citations where you can find exactly what you need or things that you should look at to give you a better grasp of the resolution .