I am a high school history teacher with extensive international traveling experience. I have been involved with Speech and debate programs since 2003 and I was an individual events speaker when I was in high school. When I am judging I look for excellence in the following categories:

-Organization

-Research with facts

-Presenting approprate clash

-Speaking clearly

Whenever I judge I always try my best to flow the argument and offer lots of feedback on my ballots. I expecially like when students present their arguments with historical examples.

General advice for students who I am judging:

-Please do not spread arguments so fast that I cannot keep up with your words

-Please define all terms so I am sure you are knowlegeable in what you are discussing

-Please maintain a respectful attitude toward your opponent(s) throughout the round

I'll reserve judgement round by round.

However, I want a couple things to be known.

First, keep the rounds clean. Honestly, I'll vote for most things, however if you ask yourself whether this is okay to run, then don't run it.

Second, if I can't understand what you're saying I'm not going to flow it.

Finally, I expect, as high school students, that you have the maturity to solve in round issues. Let me know if you need my input during round.

Ask me anything else within round.

My name is Christian Eng and I am happy to be judging, welcome to the tournament. I worked in both the restaurant and mortgage loan business, I am currently a substitute teacher with CCSD in southern Nevada. I have one year of policy debate experience, during the academic year of 2013-2014 I competed in Novice/JV for coach Jacob Thompson at UNLV.

I believe that the purpose of an argument is to both persuade and educate. I want to clearly know what you are advocating. If you feel like you have won certain arguments, give me clear statements defining why. It has been some time since I have been around debate and I am comfortable with a high speed debate, but if I am your judge, I highly recommend you take this opportunity to relax, slow down to a pace that is slightly faster than that of a regular conversation, and deliver some of your favorite arguments. I like impact comparisons and clear links.

Please include me in your email chain, my email is engchristian1@gmail.com, this will help in the event that I need to review evidence after the round. I have my inbox linked to my phone, so if you have any questions, cannot find the room, or will be running late, please feel free to email me.

General:

Cite all sources with proper citations (this includes last name and date). Never sacrifice speed for clarity. If you are speaking at more than 100 wpm, you better have supreme enunciation. All debates require flows, but if you don't tell me where to put them, I'll put them where I think they should go or I don't write them down at all. Speech and Debate is supposed to be a fun, inclusive, educational activity. The round should never become malicious, rude, or make anyone feel discluded or uncomfortable.

Congress:

As a parent of a congress debater I have strong opinion about what congressional debate should be. Let me tell you what it isn't. It isn't rants, it isn't default constitutionality arguments, empty rhetoric, or ad hominem attacks. Substance > speaking. You need to tell me why the legislation shifts the status quo. If you don't have a warrant don't bother speaking. I don't care if you give constructives, rebuttals, or crystals- but if you are not progressing with the debate then I might as well have judged a speech round. If you are negative, please give AT LEAST one harmful impact of failing the legislation. I don't care if you roleplay, let your personality shine in whatever way you see fit. Congress is unique because of its mobility and adaptability, please don't let that go to waste. Don't mock it.

PF:

Tell me the resolution before you began. If you want me to call for a card, tell me. If you don't give me voters than I'll vote off the other team's or my own, don't make me do that.

LD:

Explain philosophy to me. No kritiks or theory.

Speech: Fluency is appreciate. If your topic is disrespectful, you will be dropped automatically.

I participated in high school debate from 2006-2010. I was involved in Policy Debate for pretty much 4 years and dabbled in Public Forum my senior year. I graduated from UCSD with a degree in Political Science. Since then I have been judging debate tournaments for the Golden Desert Speech & Debate League and now judging virtual tournaments for Millburn HS. I guess you could call me a flay judge?

You can add me to the e-mail chain: ko.christine35@gmail.com

Overall, I am open to any type of argument as long as it is well executed. Debate what you know and do well with. If I had to make a list of my preferences, it would most likely be:
1) LARP because of my policy background
1.5) Ks
2) T/FW
3) Theory
4) Phil/Tricks

I am also comfortable with speed. I will call "clear" once, and if there continues to be a problem, I will verbally tell you. I would suggest not going full speed because there can be delays in audio and mic problems with debates online. Overall, have fun and be courteous!

I have a wiki on judge philosophies,

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Swallow%2C+Jason

Undergraduate degree in Philosophy and in Rhetoric from UC Berkeley, and was on their Parli debate team. Also JD, NYU.

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.