In summarize and weigh, tell me 3 things:

1. What's important

2. Why it's important

3. Why you are winning it.

If you do that, I will most likely vote for you.

For Capitol Club Debate:

I did PF for 3 years at Boca High, now I'm a sophomore at FSU

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask before the round :))

I would consider myself a flow judge who really appreciates a good narrative.

Case Debate:

• I see evidence as a way of proving the validity of your arguments/claims, not claims/arguments themselves. Don't run a chain of evidence and names and expect me to vote for it.
• Logical arguments are valid in my view, however don't make crazy assertions and expect me to agree with them.
• Far stretched arguments links to plausibility and topicality must be clear and evident. If you plan on running something unique make sure to explain it well. I enjoy hearing unique and different arguments/perspectives, however make sure to explain the link well.

Argumentation (rebuttal)

• When making extensions don't tell me to extend John Smith 15, summarize what I'm extending and why should I care that your opponent dropped/conceded to this argument. Extensions are meaningless unless you tell me why I care. I will not put in the impacts for you.
• Don't make the argument "my study is better" or "this argument is not plausible" or "drop this." Give me a reason why.
• Second Rebuttal needs to frontline turns and respond to any FW or observation made by the first speaking team. So basically respond to any offense.

Heres what not to do:

-Do not be mean in CX - not allowing your opponents to speak or answer the question, yelling, etc.

-in Summary and FF please do not go for everything. You're not going to win every argument and if you pick one or two arguments to go for it'll leave time for better analysis and weighing.

Misc stuff:

- If you don't weigh you won't win. Weighing isn't just the use of words, such as scope and magnitude but an actual comparison of argumentation backed up with clear warrants. The earlier the weighing is introduced, the better.

Speaker Points:

(100-90): I have a high threshold for this range of speaks. In order to get a 90-100 you need to:

1) Meet the time on all speeches

2) Introduce clear, comparative weighing (preferably as soon as rebuttal) - see under misc. ^

2a) In order to get access to this weighing, a warrant needs to be provided

3) Signpost throughout your speeches (even give me a roadmap at the beginning)

4) Clearly articulate your points in a timely manner (aka good word economy)

5) Do line by line coverage

(80-89):

1) Meet the time on all speeches

2) Signpost

3) Good word economy

3) Introduce comparative weighing at least in the summarize and weigh speech

(70-79):

1) Almost fill the time requirement

2) You make strategic decisions of what to extend

3) Signpost

4) Hopefully do comparative weighing (at least introduce the rhetoric of some weighing mechanism)

(60-69):

1) Need to make some extensions within your speeches

(50-59):

1) This means you didn't extend arguments - You have no offense (it was dropped)

2) You don't fill even half of the speech time

3) You make poor strategic decisions

4) You really just did not engage in the debate and provided little to no clash

Experience:

4 years of PF at duPont Manual in Louisville, KY.

3 years of NFA-LD/LP at Western Kentucky University.

TLDR –

(1) Speed good.

(2) Do what you do best – I’ll do my best to adapt.

(3) Prefer fast policy-style rounds.

(4) No objections to judging the K – just less experienced.

(5) Great debate minds that heavily influenced the way I view/judge this activity: Chad Meadows, Anthony Survance, Claire Rung & Alex Rivera.

Long(ish) Version (will become more detailed as I judge more NFA rounds) –

It’s your round – I’m just here to evaluate it. Debate how you’re most comfortable. I’ll do my best to evaluate whatever’s in front of me.

I have not researched the endless wars topic.

I dislike evidence from random news outlets. Flex your author qualifications in front of me.

I like big affs that directly engage a large portion of the topic. I dislike small affs that use their tangential relation to the topic to no-link all neg ground.

Lean neg on most issues related to conditionality. Multiple condo CPs is fine if you can win the condo flow.

Not a fan of five-card DAs that take forever to get to the point.

I default drop the debater on disclosure (put your stuff on the wiki!) – drop the arg on every other theory argument. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

T is a voter. What’s “topical” is up for debate!

Don’t waste your time on RVIs in front of me.

I didn’t debate the K much, but feel free to read it. Alt solvency is really important to me. Wouldn’t suggest kicking the alt and going for the K as a DA to the aff in the 2N in front of me.