Hello. My name is Aidan Lawson. I debated for Sequoyah High school for 3 years - 2 in LD and 1 in policy so I can follow most arguments that will be thrown my way. I try my best to be as impartial as possible, as otherwise the round wouldn't be fair. That being said I do have some preferences and I've tried to outline my key ones below.

 
I am a fairly traditional judge and so I do tend to lean slightly towards more traditional arguments.

 
Specifics are as follows:

 
Speed:

No spreading, though reading quickly is fine. There's a difference between speed reading and spreading your case as quickly as possible.

 

Theory:
I'm open to theory as an argument if it is explained well. I stress this because as a debator I never delved very deeply into theory, and don't weigh it very highly in a round. I'll vote on it but it needs to be explained and argued well. It's better if you don't hinge all of your case on a theory shell. Don't make me hate debate with excessive theory / metatheory.

 
Counter-Plans/Disads/Etc:

 
All of these things are more policy based and, while I am a more traditional judge, I will listen and weigh these arguments accordingly so long as they aren't spread disgustingly quickly during round. It doesn't make for good debate if your whole objective is to push out as much evidence as possible. I have no problem with these kinds of cases if they're argued a little more traditionally and explained in a more traditional context.

 
Framework / Value Debate:

 
Love this kind of debate. Arguing the merits or morals of a particular philosophy, system, or viewpoint is very entertaining and my definite favorite thing to judge on. Make sure to tie your contentions back into your framework - It will benefit you and make the round easier to judge.

 
Misc:

 
Make sure to explain to me the SIGNIFICANCE of your points. As a judge I'm not allow to draw any conclusions that you don't make for you. So please tell me why your points matter within the context of the resolution. You don't have to do this for every individual card but if you read me a bunch of analytics, cards, and the like, and then say something like, "Therefore, I impact." I'll be expecting something more because a concluding remark like that tells me nothing.

 
Don't just recite cards back and forth at each other. I don't judge policy debate for this very reason. There's nothing more boring than listening to two people read pre written arguments and (more annoyingly) pre written responses to those arguments. Funnily enough, argumentation is a key part of debate.

 
Make sure to roadmap + signpost before and during your speeches so that I have an easier time following you. Otherwise my flow ends up looking really cluttered and confusing.

 
VOTERS - Please make sure to reiterate key points during your final speech and why you think you've won them. Voters really help judges decide key impacts in round.

 
And above all - Don't be intentionally malicious to your opponent. It's just not okay under any circumstances to be deliberately mean or condescending to your opponent, no matter how the round is going.

 
I hope this shed some light on what I look for in a round.