Hi, I am Ram Dutt and I have judged many times before. Thank you for considering these suggestions to help me judge fairly and authentically.

Please Speak clearly so that i can understand you and be able to give you credit.

Introduce yourself and start with you plan and tell a good story connecting your arguments.

If you going to use jargon, please expand and explain. If you feel that i am not paying attention, that is because i am taking notes.

I will use my phone timer and give you a 5 second leeway and the ask you to stop

I believe in well linked arguments that tell a good story. I believe in respect for competitors and thoughtful behaviors. Arguments should have references and data that substantiates validity and applicability.

mckennamains@gmail.com

Competed 3 years of Public Forum Debate in High School

1 year + continuing Policy Debate at University of Washington

Have judged high school debate for one year

Prep Time can end when you say you're done prepping, but if I think you're not being honest we will have a conversation. 

I don't know if this is an annomoly, but in my short judging career I have had the misfortune of judging 3 rounds where the students made the round a joke. Please have respect for your peers, for me, and for the activity. 

Have fun!

Policy:

K: I mostly enjoy running straightforward policy arguments when I debate, but have debated with critical partners. On the neg the Kritik has to solve the aff and have a clear impact story. 

T: I think teams should be topical, but that just means the other team has to win topicality, not that you lose for being untopical. To win topicality you must have clear voters with specificically a topical version of the aff and ground loss to make it pursuasive. 

DA: Good to go. 

CP: In my limited judging experience, I have to call for the CP at the end of the round because the debates get very muddled.

• Multiple CPs are fine with me, but theory can also probably pursuade me why multiple CPs are bad.
• Multiple perms need to be differentiated and explained seperately with an adequate extension. 
• Obviously CPs are useless without a net benefit
• CP needs to solve the impacts of the aff and have enough risk of the net benefit to outweigh 

Pufo:

Judging public forum after competing in policy debate has changed a lot of ways I view public forum. I think a lot of judges say it's half presentation, half argumentation, but as a judge that has definitely shifted to 10% presentation, 90% argumentaiton for me. The flow will be what I am judging off of. 

In terms of arguments, I think there is a perception that you can not "drop" a single thing in a debate. I think public forum can benefit from a narrowing of arguments in the rebuttals, and this can be achieved by not "dropping" arguments, but "going for" certain ones. A team would have a better chance of winning with one, good, in depth argument that outweighs the other team at the end of the debate.