if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

In General:

I'm pretty laid back and open to both progressive and traditional styles of debate. As long as you're not abusive or offensive, we should get along great! Just "do your best and have fun." :)

Cheat sheet:

General overview

Experience: I've judged TOC finals --------x---------------------------------------- Lay

Tech over truth: Tech ----------------------------------x---------------- Truth

Comfort with speed: Fast, like policy fast -------------x---------------------------------- lay judge/parent judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ---------------x--------------------- not receptive to theory

Impact calculus that I use:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing -------------x---------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people --x--------------------------------------------- No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact ----------------x-------------------------------- Not a severe impact

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

Framework:

If no framework is brought up, then I will default to a basic CBA. I'm open to hearing different kinds of framework as long as they aren't abusive and place an undue burden on the opposing team. If the opposing team brings up a framework, make sure to address it! It makes it hard to not go with their framework if it isn't addressed. Just because one side brings forth a framework and the other side doesn't, does not necessarily mean I will automatically go with the framework presented as long as it is argued why I shouldn't go with it. Try not to make the debate about framework. I prefer clash over technical arguments about wording.

Flow:

I am a flow judge and as such, I will vote off of it. If you mention something once in rebuttal etc. and never bring it up again, it won't be brought through the round. Give me some good clash!

Evidence:

I will try to interject as a judge as little as possible in regards to evidence. I will try to base my decision on what occurs during the round and not my personal opinion as to whether a particular piece of evidence is factually correct or not. However, if the opposing side makes a point of the evidence not being factually correct, then it's fair game! I will try not to call for cards unless there is a fundamental dispute over evidence that would affect the outcome of the debate.

When you call for cards, I will not count the time your opponents use to find the cards against you. I will start the prep clock once you receive the evidence.

Speed:

I can handle some speed, but don't go too crazy. Once you start to get to a 7/10 or higher, you start to lose me. If I can't hear or understand what you are saying then it won't be placed on my flow. It should be noted that although it may not lose you the round, I tend to look unfavorably on those who speak fast for the purpose of tripping up their opponents. PF should be accessible to everyone.

Style:

As said before, I'm open to a lot of different styles of debate. If you run a K in PF, you have to run it right so it fits with the format of the debate. If you are split between running a K and not running it, I would choose not to run it. I am a bit reluctant to go with counterplans as that is not the intended style of PF debate. Whatever you do, just give me clear impacts and voters to vote on.

Speeches:

Rebuttal:

A line-by-line rebuttal with signposting is the way to my heart. You don't necessarily need to spend the time to bring through your case during the rebuttal as the rebuttal is more for offense (although doing so may help!). DO NOT claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it - it was a pet peeve of mine as a debater when people would do this and it's still one now that I'm a judge.

Summary & FF:

I am a voters judge so if you condense your summary and FF into clear voters, that makes it way easier for me to contextualize the round. Tell me what the main issues are and then go through each one to tell me why you won them. I do base my decision on the voters. You should also start to weigh your arguments at this stage.

Cross-Ex:

Please just stay respectful. I will tolerate those who assertively stand their ground, but I won't tolerate those who are overly aggressive. You can finish answering a question if the timer goes off.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Judge Background:

I debated for four years on the SD circuit. The events I competed in are: PF, DX, and Congress. I qualified to nationals three times (twice for PF and once for DX) and I competed in the SD state tournament all four years of high school. My senior year, I was (with my wonderful partner) the state champion in PF debate and made it to national outrounds.

I now attend Harvard University where I study government and sociology. I am the former Chair of the Harvard Political Union, the nation's oldest collegiate debate society, and now an Executive Board member of the Harvard Institute of Politics.

Feel free to ask me questions!

Email: carterdemaray@college.harvard.edu

email -- hunti058@umn.edu

hi im syd (they/them)! i am a phil/cscl major at the umn.

spectators need to ask if every student is okay with being watched. same goes for recording rounds. i will double check before the round starts, and intervene if necessary.

please set up chains/get to the round on time, its a latent pet peeve (won't effect ur speaks, will make me grouchy).

i don't really care about speaks. i pretty much give out 28.8-30, although i don't think i've given out a 30 yet? the breakdown generally results in winning 2N/2A being the highest, winning 1A/1N second, etc. but i will lower for the usual reasons. mnudl kids i tend to follow the guidelines given by the udl for udl tournaments, this may result in slight discrepancies.

u need to be slower than ur top speed. tags+analytics need to be like an 8, fw/t like a 6 (which goes ESPECIALLY for k vs fw. i have the hardest time adjudicating these kinds of rounds if the debaters are flying through blocks). i flow speeches not docs, and i will vote based on the arguments i can flow. this means my decisions are better the more clear you keep your speeches.

stolen from rose larson's paradigm -- "An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not 'dropped an argument' until you have actually MADE one."

my policy knowledge is always limited on any topic, you need to explain your acronyms and internal link scenarios, especially on aff. i will vote on presumption (if introduced by the neg) if i do not understand the world of the aff by the end of the debate. usually also makes me bad for t debates, since i don't have enough knowledge to make global decisions on the topic. i leave that one to the pros and love to vote on reasonability.

condo is fine until the other team wins via tech that its not. perf con to a certain extent is fine, but if your k is premised on epistemological claims i will be super willing to vote for perf con.

very tech over truth these days. dead inside etc. i will read cards after the round if there is obvious judge direction to do so, but i don't like looking at docs during speeches unless i need to for more complex debates (or when i miss an author).

i like kritiks more than any other argument in debate. these rounds are always more fun for me than policy rounds.

addendum to this -- i am dissuaded by generic kritiks. to be successful in front of me you need to have specific and clear links to the affirmative. you should be including quotes from cards or cx, the blocks should be somewhat tailored. do not fiat your alts, i do not know how that became a trend.

another kritik addendum -- you should absolutely authenticity test your opponents, especially in rounds where the argument in question is pessimistic about the future of groups of people. i do not want to hear arguments about black people being ontologically dead from a nonblack person, i do not want to hear arguments about trans people being ontologically dead from a cis person.

i like all affs, but i am also as good for fw as any other off case. these debates should be slower toward the end of the debate, and kept very narrow if possible. please overexplain interps/we meets/counter interps, this is where i get lost the most. impact framing really matters in this kind of debate.

I was a 4 year policy debater for Sioux Falls Roosevelt from 2016-20. Had a lot of success both in state and on the national circuit, and always prefered circuit arguments and styles. I went on to earn my B.S.B. in Finance from the University of Minnesota.

Quick things for all formats
- Speed is fine, but if you spread analytics I will only evaluate what is on my flow
- Ask me if you have questions
- No prep for email/flashing
- Include me in the e-mail chain/flash drive exchange (jaxonkroger@gmail.com)
- Tag team CX is acceptable, but partner's shouldn't dominate it
- In your last speech you should probably not go for everything
- Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments
- You can be aggressive, but don't be mean

You need to flesh out your arguments, dive deeper and give me the warrants!!!!

PF NOTES AFTER POLICY

POLICY

Theory (+Topicality)

Nobody likes a judge who doesn't evaluate theory. I’ve voted on it and I've ran it. It has to be developed and it has to dive deep into the standards. The claim needs to be legit. I generally default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. Have offense against their interpretation and use the standards to prove substance to your theoretical objection. If you go for theory in any sense of the word, tell me whether it’s a reason to reject the team or argument and provide offense for that. If you close on theory, you should spend at least 4 minutes on it

On conditionality: 1 is fine--2 is fine--3 is fine--4 gives you a claim

Disadvantages

Link story is usually the largest uphill battle, so you should probably have more than one link
Specific links are good links
Disad turns case is important
Risk of uniqueness is a thing
Link turns need uniqueness to be offense

UQ DAs are always easier to win on than generic pltx

CPs

CP's are strategic and should be used often. Ones that are specific to the aff are even better.

Court CPs- need a test case

AFF- must explain how the perm functions (saying Perm:do both and moving on will not be weighed)

Kritiks

Kritiks are litty. I ran Setcol affs and neg strats where we always closed on the K in my junior year. Senior year I ran Puar/Queer theory. I am fairly familiar with other Ks like afropes, neolib, cap, Deleuze. But I may not know your K, and even if I do- always debate as if I don't know the jargon. If I don't understand the K, that's on you...not me. That effect is x10 when you spread. Ive come to the point in my career I believe that unless both sides spread very efficiently then education is lost. We (debaters) use spreading as a competitive tool to get "gotcha moments" that hurts quality education. Cover the entire K, the impacts of it, the alt level, the terms, etc. Flesh that stuff out. If you're neg don't read more than one K, I believe it takes away the significance and impacts of it. If it is an identity K, you probably have to close on it or I will have a hard time voting for you. Aff teams should use kicked Ks to run theory or framework. K vs K rounds can get confusing FAST, thus meaning give me an easy way to vote for your K.

Tech>Truth (unless blatantly racist, homophobic, etc.)

Framework

I hate evaluating these rounds. I usually default to offense/defense and vote for the team that did the best debating. Any shift from this framework usually requires a team who is doing the best debating anyway. That said, framework is a winning strategy, just dive deep into impacts, etc. Do your best to tell me why your framework is best for debate.

STUFF FOR PF

4 year policy debater so I evaluate args more like a policy debater

I can't evaluate what's not on my flow

OFFENSE, OFFENSE, OFFENSE!!!!

Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments

I'm a flow judge

If 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, then 1st summary doesn't have to extend defense

Tag line extensions aren't enough

Collapse the round and focus on less things in the last 2 speeches

Please give me impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude, etc)

Weigh your impact against the opponents' impacts!

Contextualize your arguments to the rounds!

LD

Will evaluate any argument but might not know the lingo or content of your particular argument so please make sure you're explaining your side

Can probs read my sections for CX to get more info on my preferences

I did Public Forum debate at Harrisburg High School and I participated in all 4 years of high school. I didn't really participate in any other event, so if I'm judging you in speech or a different debate event I won't be as great a judge. I have limited experience with LD and Extemp, but not much else. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. In short, speak clearly, be nice, and follow the rules.

--PF--

Speaking:Being concise and well-spoken is important, but being respectful is equally important. I won't hesitate to drop speaker points if you are blatantly condescending or use insulting language.

Flowing: I flow pretty well and will vote off the flow most of the time. Other factors like speaking matter somewhat but the flow and pulling your arguments through are super important to me. Often times when cards are brought up in quick succession I don't write the card's names down as I am more focused on flowing the content of the card, so telling me what the card says in later speeches is key to keeping it on my flow. Cards are important, but big ideas and refuting the actual arguments your opponents make matters to me.

Evidence: I expect both teams to come to the round prepared with all possible evidence. If you use a card in the case please have the uncut article available, preferably with the used section highlighted. If you cannot produce the evidence promptly (within a minute or two) I will assume you don't have the evidence and evaluate the round as such. I will adhere to the rules, meaning if you do your own math, misconstrue an author's intention, or do anything else in violation of evidence rules I will not weigh the evidence in my decision.

Prep time: When you call for cards, I will start YOUR prep once you have received the article/card you requested. I will end prep time when you return it. I will start prep before you are given the requested card if you are prepping while you wait.

Framework: If a framework is given I will vote on it as long as it's not refuted effectively enough and is carried through. If you drop your framework in the summary and then bring it up in FF I won't be voting on it. If you can't adhere to their framework then give me another weighing mechanism or another framework. If a framework is abusive, tell me it's abusive and why. Don't get too deep into the framework debate.

Summaries: I prefer line-by-line when it comes to summaries as it's easier to follow in the flow, but using voters or another mechanism won't kill you by any means. Whatever you do, always signpost as much as you can, and don't go too fast. If an argument is important in the round, be sure to talk about it in summary, because if it's dropped in summary I won't be voting on it.

Final Focuses: Don't lie about what people said in the second FF to try to win the round.

--LD--

I have judged two rounds of LD debate in my life, one novice and one varsity. Do with that information as you will.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

I am a former policy and IX debater, so speed is not much of an issue for me. I don't have a particular attachment to the formalities of debate, so theory arguments that can't prove obvious abuse don't move me too much. I think arguments designed to evaluate a policy proposal or resolution are more meaningful than arguments designed to 'win the game', and following that all advice I give is more in the interest of promoting clearly reasoned analysis than in the interest of strictly winning rounds. I believe that the burden of identifying specious logic is on the debater answering an argument, so I will not discredit faulty logic of an argument unless it is identified, but I will discredit responses to an argument that are similarly specious. If there are any other particular questions about how I judge, please ask me at the beginning of the round. If y'all have any questions or concerns about any feedback I give after the round, please feel free to reach out to me to expand or clarify anything, particularly since I am aware that my criticisms often are or appear harsh or unreasonable and I am always interested in adapting my language and approach to best engage debaters without dismissing or embittering them.

Hello!

I am currently a junior at Wake Forest University

chain - rylietorguson@gmail.com

Top level --

- I love good theory debates, especially when your reasons to prefer are specific to your strategy (this is definitely true for teams reading K lit) -

- I have no problem with speed, but clarity>speed always

- Big fan of presumption

- cx is binding, really enjoy good cx

- Unethical behavior will result in me voting you down. I'd prefer if you didn't read args that tell your opponent to quit/"get out" of debate - but besides that, do what you want.

-POLICY-

K debate--

- I have primarily read ks on the aff and neg. I'm most familiar with settler colonialism, cap, academy/university-esque critiques, IR etc. I'm fairly well-read when it comes to Wilderson, Moten & Harney, and SOME Baudrillard. Upon coming to college, I've started to read literature about logistics/counter-logistics.

- Although I'm comfortable with this type of debate, I am still unfamiliar with a lot of k literature, especially once you start getting into the more high-theory end of things. Don’t let this deter you from reading your k though, just explain your stuff and avoid only using jargon.

- k affs: I have a pretty high threshold for k affs when it comes to explaining the significance of voting affirmative - this does not mean you need to win spill-over warrants etc, rather set a standard for evaluation in the round, and explain your method of engagement. If I feel that this analysis is lacking, I will feel more inclined to vote on presumption. In k v k debates, k aff teams need to spend more time on the permutation.

- I would prefer if you had some relation to the topic, but that is something that can be debated out in the round.

FW: Tactics FW is underutilized in high school. Both sides should be making role of the ballot arguments. NEG - Although I read mostly K args, I am sympathetic to FW teams if your aff has no relation to the topic. With that being said, I will vote on FW if you have done the better debating and have won a sufficient warrant for why the AFF’s model of debate is worse for clash and education etc. I don’t think limits and fairness are impacts, rather internal links to them. TVAs should be carded. I am not a fan of a fairness only 2nr. AFF - I am not a fan of the “fw is literal genocide” type impact turns. I enjoy debates about the stasis, more specifically whether we should be centering the state or different tactics to engage the resolution. Most K affs should be set up to answer things like FW, so don’t underutilize the offense that already exists in the 1ac!! I love when the 2ar has a robust explanation of what their model looks like, i.e explaining what clash, limits, aff and neg ground look like under their model.

policy specific–

- I don’t have much to say here, so if you have any specific questions make sure to ask before round. I'm pretty comfortable with most policy args - it's been a while since I've read a straightforward policy strat, but as long as you have a clear internal link chain and are sufficiently weighing your impacts, I should not have a problem evaluating the round

- I wouldn't consider myself amazing at judging CP debates -- especially when it comes to very nitty gritty counter-plan texts with several planks, so make sure you are explaining in depth why it is capable of solving the aff.

-NOVICE PUBLIC FORUM-

Narrow down the debate in the last few speeches, don't go for too much. Give judge instruction, tell me where to vote.

Clash -- respond to your opponent's arguments. If you choose to debate about the quality of evidence in the round at least have some sort of detailed comparison (don't rely on args like this though)

do impact calc -- weigh your impacts and contextualize your arguments

Use prep and fill speech time -- these go hand in hand. It is not strategic to have all of your prep left for the last speech and then proceed not to use it

PLEASE do not just re-read one of your earlier speeches in the summary or final focus.

Speed is fine, if you normally speak fast there is no reason you should feel the need to slow down for me

don't be rude or problematic. unethical behavior in the round will result in me voting you down.

Lastly, enjoy yourself!

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, and clarity of thought. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework or philosophy; your contentions count too!

LD

I am in my third season of judging LD, so I am still learning. I will admit that I am leaning on my Public Forum experience to a degree during the learning process. I have so far developed two rules about judging LD:

1.) Defend your value statement, especially if your opponent attacks it. If your opponent is able to negate your value statement, your case goes away and it becomes extremely difficult to win at that point.

2.) If you and your opponent agree upon or merge your value statements and your criterion, then to me it becomes a PF round.

PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC.

Introduction

The best thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it, and the worst thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it. If you don't read this before a round, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS OF ONLINE DEBATE, don't complain to your coach about what is said on my ballot after you lose.

How I vote/Framework

You can present your framework if you want, but I really don't pay any attention to it, especially with resolutions that are Yes/No. I am more interested in hearing the contents of your case, and I don't start flowing until I hear you say "Contention 1". I vote based on the cases, their contents, the attacks made on the cases and the responses to those attacks. Whoever has the majority of their case left standing at the end of the round wins. I value evidence over opinion, but not exclusively so. If you are presenting a morality-based case, you do so at your peril. It is my opinion that morality arguments are best done in LD. If you present a morality-based case AND you tell me I'm immoral if I vote you down, you are officially done at that point (it's happened, that's why it's included).

Argumentation
First and foremost, I expect professional conduct during the entirety of the round. While I haven’t yet decided a round based on arrogance, rudeness or condescension, I also have no qualms awarding a low-point win if the tournament rules allow.

Case speakers – I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of what has to be proven by whom during a debate round, especially toward the end of a topic period. Therefore, I don’t want to hear the Webster definition of 3 or 4 of the words in the resolution unless your definition differs from your opponent's. You may present framework if you want, but refer to the above as to how I treat it. As stated above in "How I vote", I very rarely start flowing until I hear "Our first contention is...…"

Rebuttal speakers – I value your responses to your opponent’s case more than I do getting back to your own, especially if all you’re doing is re-reading it. In addition, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE OR ARE SUPPLEMENTING YOUR OWN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING. If you don't, it doesn't get flowed, and what doesn't get flowed doesn't get judged. I also like rebuttal speakers who are skilled enough to be able to attack their opponent’s rebuttal if you are speaking second. Finally, be very careful if you're attacking your opponent's case with points from your own. If your attack point gets damaged or negated, the opponents points you attacked will more than likely pull through intact.

Crossfire – It is very difficult to win a round during crossfire, but it is very easy to lose a round during crossfire. I’ll let you interpret that however you want. I consider CX to be for my benefit, not yours. I'm not real crazy about interruptions or talking over one another. Let your opponent finish an answer before you ask a follow-up question. I do reserve the right (and I have done it) to cut off a CX round if all you're doing is continuing the debate rather than doing Q&A. My rule at the buzzer - an answer may finish, a question may not.

Summary - The third minute of summary that was added last year has been interesting in how teams have approached it. I will say this: If you are speaking first, you can go back and attack your opponent's rebuttal, but don't spend more than 90-seconds on it. If you spend the entire time in attack, I'm going to assume you think you're losing. You should be introducing voters and giving me your introductory analysis of how the round is going.

Final Focus – You should be telling me why you won the round. I do not object if you figuratively take me by the hand and walk me through your analysis of how the round went. If you spend more than half your time continuing to attack your opponent's case, I will again assume that you're not confident about the success of your own.

Delivery
As far as speed goes, this is not policy. While I do flow with a spreadsheet on a laptop, there are even speeds that I can’t follow. If you see me put my hands behind my head, you are talking too fast, and what does not get flowed does not get judged. Please slow down a notch when presenting main points and sub points.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC - If you are going to run Climate Change on the Pro, or Remittances on the Con, you had better be able to connect it back to the resolution. If you don't, and your opponent argues that either of these points are non-resolutional, I will agree with them.

Questions? Feel free to send an email to either wilsonbl@sio.midco.net or blaine@ucctcm.org

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.