In terms of debate, I like to see arguments that flow throughout the entire round. I look for organization in both speeches and rebuttals. I'm fairly relaxed in terms of what arguments are brought to the table. Have fun with it, and convince me.

In limited preps, I love organization, the use of proper citations, and a solid job of explaining your point to me, rather than just "talking" at me.

In platform events, I look for organization mostly. Is your speech easy to follow? Do you provide justification? Do you bring an interesting spin to the topic? Are your implications believable?

In interp events, I look for believability. I also look at the argument that is being presented.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

My primary expectation in a round of any kind is respect. I am a firm believer that the debate space is one that is intended to be welcoming to all. Competing takes a lot of courage, and I loathe a situation where someone feels like they are not welcome in an environment that is predetermined to be for education.

Debate: As a judge, my job is to analyze the information presented to me, evaluated under standards set by the student. If one states that the impacts are the most important reason why they should win the round, I require some sort of opposition or substitution from the opponent, otherwise I must default to impacts. Do not expect me as a judge to draw my own conclusions about your case. It is not my responsibility to weigh the impacts of your case for you, so make sure that you verbalize the most important pieces as you're making your way through them.

email for doc sharing: John.vasquez4465@gmail.com