Warrow,+Scott

SCOTT WARROW
General Comments: My major preference does not center on any particular issue, type of argument, or style of debate but rather on the nature of the what I believe makes for an educational, challenging, and enjoyable debate round. The following is a list of what I assess when awarding wins and speaker points.

1. **Constructive Speeches** must do more than serve to introduce positions and arguments, they must be logically developed, fully presented, relevant to opposing positions, and coherent in order for me to hear (I wear hearing aids), understand and accept them. Merely reading evidence at is only one part of that process.

2. **Cross Examinations** must do more than serve to gather simple information, such as a list of tag lines or sources. Debaters must use this time to setup arguments, indict evidence, and attack positions. This should be an argumentative, analytical, and comparative. If you see me filling out my ballot during this time, it means you are debating poorly during this period.

3. **Rebuttal** Speeches must be more than extending tag lines from constructive speeches. Debaters need to advance arguments and develop positions by beginning with general and regional overviews, providing insightful explanation, directly answering opponents arguments, reading additional evidence, collapsing to key issues, packaging arguments into winning positions, closing the door on opponents likely responses, adapting to my judging philosophy, and explaining why you win the round,

4. **Argumentation**. Debaters need to fully explain the details and meaning of their arguments by presenting clear and well-written tag lines and reading warranted, explanatory evidence. They should use analysis to show direct clash and relevant implications to compare of evidence, source qualifications, and any position. I extremely dislike "statements" in the place of arguments. Too many times debaters provide three statements instead of explaining one argument. I'm more likely to vote on one Critique, Counter plan, DA, or Case Advantage that is well developed than three that are skimpy in evidence and explanation.

5. **Winning.** Debaters must always fully explain why they win the round by making comparisons of arguments and evidence. Debaters should maintain specific line by line argumentation while emphasizing the "big picture." Impact analysis, framework and link comparison are critically important. Debaters may win by any means necessary--including rebuttal discos, theory issues, critiques, procedural issues-- so long as they can explain with logical reasoning why winning this issue(s) means they deserve to win the round. The fact that two nuclear wars outweighs one nuclear war or that the 2NR dropped the 4th argument on a DA are not a good explanations. Credibility, probability, and evidence support need to be addressed as well in making end round evaluations.

6. **Theory** Debaters should note that I am not likely to enjoy deciding rounds on theoretical objections to counter plans, perms, critiques, or topicality. I much rather make decision based on the substantive issues in the debate. Debaters who spend excessive unwarranted time on theoretical objections risk lower speaker points and losing my ballot. However, if the theoretical objection is clearly warranted and well structured, then I will vote for it.

Thank You and Have Fun!