LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

Me: I was a policy debater in high school.

How I decide who wins the debate:

I look at the important decisions in the round and decide based on who convinces me the best. I do everything I can to leave my bias outside of the round and to pretend I have zero knowledge on the topic/resolution.

I am looking for arguments/evidence to be warranted, and expect rebutted arguments/defenses to move the argument forward, and to not to defend with a repeat of what you said before(it’s been attacked, tell me why the attack is deficient). Use your logic skills here to do this. I love a great argument (especially negating your opponent’s argument/evidence) that is a result of your critical analysis and not just a card you found in your research. If everyone drops an argument, so do i. If you pick up that an argument has been dropped, especially an important one, please let me know that you are on top of that.

Evidence should be empirical.

I think the beauty of debate is the research & the critical thinking. I want to see that reflected in your debate and not arguments based off internet searches of someone else's critical thinking (it shows).

Big Claims: if you attempt to argue a really big claim/contention (the resolution will result in anarchy, totalitarianism, imminent nuclear war), back it up well with a great piece(s) of evidence and convince me. Opponent: don’t fall for “hyperbole is business as usual”. Use this to your advantage and bring the argument back into reality.

Utilization of alternative methods (e.g. redefining the universal definition of words listed in the resolution, theory, k, etc, etc.): I believe that everyone involved in the round has made an unwritten contract with one another that we are all here for the spirit of the activity and resolution/topic as designed. However, I acknowledge that sometimes, especially in the resolution/topic, "as designed" may be unintentionally deficient and an alternative method is a reasonable strategy.

Speed. I flow the round and as long as I am able to understand the argument that is made, both in coherency, and annunciation, I am fine with spreading. But unless you are good at it, I suggest you slow down and focus on communicating your message. Spreading quickly becomes a distraction if you are terrible at it. Don’t undermine yourself. Remember: you have studied the topic at length. you are more familiar with the topic than I am. Your job is to communicate to me, the person (you should assume) who is unfamiliar with the topic. Refrain from casual acronyms, etc., that you use with your teammates. I haven't been part of those conversations.

CrossX. i am not judging you on anything that happens in the CrossX. If you make an argument here, it counts as nothing to me unless you bring it up in your neg construction or rebuttal. I prefer crossXs that set you up for your next turn rather than the theatrics that can happen in CrossX. Please do not berate your opponent into submission of the desired response. I understand the need to interrupt so that your opponent does not eat up your crossX time, but I ask you to do this effectively to advance your case, not as an intimidation strategy.

GOOD LUCK and HAVE FUN!