Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

Lay Judge with Tabula Rasa leanings - Looking for concise and clear arguments.

Major Policymaker judge here

I have been doing debate for 4 years so I am pretty good at catching the small things said and sometimes those small things that I catch can make or break around for you.

Aff - as long as you can tell me why your policy works and why your case will solve you will get my ballot and vice versa for the Neg

I have been judging for 4 seasons.

I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.

Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.

The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.

The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.

Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.