Hom,+Anna

I have judged primarily in the North East for the past two years. I would consider myself a strong traditionalist; I do not enjoy speed, "kritiks", theory, or other arguments as such. Although I will strive to be objective, I want each debater to convince me they are right - the ballot asks ME who the better debater is, and as such, the side who has been more convincing to me will be the side that wins. I do not, however, judge based on rhetorical flourishes - I expect logical and intelligible arguments. "Convincing" the judge does not merely entail speaking prettily, but is about the ability to both effectively convey arguments and make superior arguments to your opponent. I would consider myself an intelligent person, so you ought to treat me as such. Try and find the happy medium between empty rhetoric and substantive in depth analysis. I want debaters to explain why they are winning the round - beyond just throwing out arguments and calling things voting issues (although you should give voting issues), debaters have to take the judge step by step through the decision calculus, explaining how they are winning the criterial debate (if it is relevant in round), how that effect how I view other arguments, and so on and so forth. Do not assume the judge will make the intuitive leaps about the function of an argument or criterion for you. Avoid making "dumb" arguments, or arguments that utterly go against common sense. That is not to say you ought not run counterintuitive arguments, merely that it tends to be harder to justify such arguments - they are unintuitive for a reason. Finally, I prefer a traditional structure for a debate round, i.e. criterion that is a moral framework and contentions. There is a high chance I will be lost if you use other structures - at least make it clear if you do so.