Fanning,+Jonathan

As LD is, in principle, a values debate, I tend to always favor the competitor who can best create and win the value clash. I hate the citation of evidence or cards without logical warrants to back them up, so please don't rely on a piece of evidence or a quote from a smart guy to support your case. Rather walk me through how logically such a position fits within your value framework. I just as often vote for competitors with no evidence as those with plenty of evidence if their case is logically and rhetorically well-warranted.

I pay very close attention to the language of a resolution, and often vote for the competitor who better addresses the resolution, rather than an opponent with a solid argument that doesn't directly address the resolution.

Speed - I care about warrants and persuasion. Both are diminished by too much speed--and I tend to suspect speed as an attempt to cover for a lack of warrants. If your evidence is good, slow down and let me hear that it's good. Also, although I coached debate for five years, I haven't judged a round since making a career change three years ago. Therefore, my ability to comprehend arguments made at speed is probably significantly diminished from what it once was.

I don't care what you say in crossfire. Philosophically, I believe that CX times are only for the competitors. If you are able to get your opponent to concede some major point or take a position that you will then argue against, and you want me to judge on it, make sure you present it to me in your next speech.