No preferences except for speed, speakers must be clear and concise.

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

I am a traditional judge. I normally judge speaking events and interpretation.

In interpretation, I appreciate natural acting in most events with the exception of Humorous. I believe you can be fully animated in Humorous Interpretation. ALWAYS have purpose for your blocking. If you have blocking just for the sake of blocking, I will rank you down. It is better to have real emotion than "fake crying" or a "crying voice." Always be true to your character(s).

In speaking, speeches should be delivered at a pace that is easily understandable. Organization is key as well as keeping the audience interested with a great vehicle.

I do not flow spreading. I believe debate is a communication event, not who can get the most arguments in the least amount of time (there is not a difference in "fast speaking" and "spreading"). If you spread, you'll get low speaks and have a hard time winning my ballot.

Debate was created to communicate and compare your points against your opponent's points. If you don't create a clear story and explanation, I will not vote you up.

I will immediately vote you down if you are rude or aggressive towards your opponent. It is one time to debate and clash against an argument, it's another to attack your opponent.

If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: Aliciaesquivel4@gmail.com

I am a traditional judge. I normally judge speaking events and interpretation.

In interpretation, I appreciate natural acting in most events with the exception of Humorous. I believe you can be fully animated in Humorous Interpretation. ALWAYS have purpose for your blocking. If you have blocking just for the sake of blocking or tech, I will rank you down. It is better to have real emotion than "fake crying" or a "crying voice." Always be true to your character(s).

In speaking, speeches should be delivered at a pace that is easily understandable. Organization is key as well as keeping the audience interested with a great vehicle.

I do not flow spreading. I believe debate is a communication event, not who can get the most arguments in the least amount of time (there is not a difference in "fast speaking" and "spreading").

I will vote you down if you are rude or aggressive towards your opponent. It is one thing to debate and clash against an argument, it's another to attack your opponent.

If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: lyn_esquivel@yahoo.com

I have been coaching and judging speech and debate for over ten years. I mainly judge speech events now that I have former debate students who travel with our school to judge at tournaments around South Texas. I have judged at the UIL State Competition in poetry and prose. I also served on the UIL Regional Advisory Committee for speech in 2019, 2021, & 2022.

When I am judging events like poetry, prose, duo, duet, etc., I want the competitor to tell a story. I will listen for variations in tempo and volume. The introduction is the time for your personality to shine through. I want to see the reason you selected this piece and for you to give energy and life to your piece.

When I judge events like extemp or original oratory, I'm looking for a well-organized speech. Support your topic with good points or reasons. Tie everything up in the conclusion.

Hello! I'm Kat!

I was a debater for four years and am now a full-time college student who still very much enjoys Policy Debate. I have been judging UIL and TFA CX Debate for three years now and I've held local camps and small practices over the last few years.

I am very much a Tab Judge! I like coming to the debate fresh and as if I know nothing. I want you to do the connecting and show me exactly why I should vote for.

I'm good with spreading as long as you're sign posting. Just be mindful that since you are competing virtually, spreading might become an issue because of technological issues. I'm open to all off-case arguments, but I am picky with my Ks. I do not want to hear a K as a time suck. Please, if you are planning on running a K, let it be strategically planned.

I am open to, and like, Framework arguments. Again, I'm Tab, so I will be coming to each round without assumptions, so Framework sometimes gives you a great starting point.

If you have any other specific questions just ask me!

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Avalos P-TECH School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Extemp Speeches: I feel that you should be able to fully support your position and analysis with specific and detailed sources. I think that your delivery should be emphatic and well supported.

Interp Events: Teasers, transitions, and such should be completely motivated and with specific reason. Choices should help round out or build the character and support the story/plot line.

If you are reading this you have already taken a step in the right direction. I am a current law student at the University of Tennessee Knoxville. I have experience in every form of debate except CX, however, I am familiar with a fair amount of policy/CX jargon. I competed in college IPDA for four years at the University of Central Arkansas and ended as a varsity national semi-finalist. In high school, I finished as a national quarterfinalist in Domestic Extemp and competed all around the country in LD, PF, and Congressional debate as well. Going on Year 9 of speech and debate involvement, I hope to provide constructive feedback that represents a variety of philosophies so you can adapt to whatever circuit you find yourself in.

For all events, I will not flow spreading. I don't mind a fast-paced round but know your limits.

IPDA
- Using blatantly abusive definitions will result in a loss. However, I do not want to see either side hinge the round on the definitions, as that gets repetitive and boring. If you have a problem with definitions, challenge them, provide your own, and then focus your time on the substance of the issue.

- Don't cite evidence you have no context for. IPDA is built on a foundation of quality argumentation that is occasionally supported by well-flushed-out evidentiary support. If you just start dropping statistics with no understanding or explanation for the relevance, it gets you nowhere.

PF
-Focus on the impacts of your arguments, and make sure to signpost your cards using the standard form of Last Name and Date. I will ask to see evidence if it is obvious that there is an evidence violation.

LD
-The entire debate needs to be based on your values, as that is how I judge LD. Your arguments need to convince me why we should use your value over the opponents, as dropping the value makes your case null.

Policy
-If you are going to run progressive arguments such as a K or a T-charge, then you need to fully develop it and give me some justification of why I should even consider it when filling out my ballot.

Big Question
-Follow the rule book, and make your arguments understandable for the common man. I am not a scientist, therefore you should avoid scientific jargon that is undefined or confuses me.

World Schools
-This debate style is like no other, so it should not resemble any other form of debate. It should be at a slower pace than other forms of debate and should focus more on rhetoric and big-picture argumentation rather than line-by-line evidence-based refutation. Use points of information strategically. You should not just use them to interrupt the opposing speaker.

I know my paradigm is unnecessarily long, but if you have any questions at all after the round, feel free to reach out to me at cjparrish46@gmail.com.

About me: I am a parent of two experienced and highly acclaimed former debaters, as well as a current speech competitor. I have been involved in the South Texas Speech and Debate community for 9 years as a judge, volunteer, and parent. I have been a highly competitive Destination Imagination coach for 12 years. I have been involved in community theater for 9 years. My experience with speech, debate, theater, and Destination Imagination gives me a unique perspective.

I am most comfortable judging Prose, Poetry, DI, HI, Duo, Duet, OO, Informative, Big Questions, Lincoln Douglas, and Policy Debate.

Debate: I am a fairly traditional style debate judge. I am ok with spreading, but don't care for it if it gets excessive. If you run a Kritik, then I expect you to be a passionate advocate for whatever it is you are advocating for. I am not a games-player style judge. I expect to be compelled to vote for you. Craft a narrative that makes me want to vote for you.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Platform Speaking: (Extemp, OO, Info, Imp)

I’m looking first at structure: a full introduction, smooth and capable transitions, and a satisfying conclusion, each section balanced with an appropriate allotment of time. Your analysis should be insightful, informed by a variety of good sources. Overall, the speech should be fluent and engaging, a clear window into your thinking.

Interp:

I’m looking for how you bring your story and character(s) to life, and how each choice contributes to this goal. It starts with the cutting: does the story build to a climax, one that leaves your character changed in some way? If not, is this intentional? I’m looking at blocking and movements: whether they are purposeful and contribute to the story, or arbitrary or just for show. Above all, I’m looking for authenticity, a performance that, through the sum of your hard work and unique choices, feels genuine and engaging.

I am a coach of three decades. I am a bit old school. I prefer a policy or stocks approach. I want to see clash on the topic. I am not a fan of kritiks, neg nor aff, especially kritical affs. I realize I'm taking ground away from those that don't like traditional debate. I will add I've submitted double loss ballot a couple of times in my life. I am a fan of topicality when run properly. Like a disAd (disadvantage), it has critical components that must be present. If not and called out by the opponent then I'm going to side with the call out, 9 times out of 10.

Now that we've moved to virtual fomat, if I have my hands up around my face then I'm not flowing. I'f I'm not flowing it isn't going to help you at all. If you don't know what flowing is, well I don't know what to tell you other than I'm old school and still listening to Bob Seger.

LD - First two sentences above are the same here. I believe in communication over quantity. I believe LD is a value & criterion debate with support from the contention levels. I’m not for CPs and DAs in LD, this isn’t policy debate. I do not like speed in LD. If both debaters take the stance, “forget you, I’m doing what I want to do,””. Then as the judge I may be left to basically a flip of a coin. I’m still running against the wind.

Let me start with; You the debater are trying to sell me your side, don't yell at me and don't speak so fast that I can not hear all your points clearly, you are selling me on something of worth not on a late-night only on TV issue. Faster speaking does not make a better debater. Have many sources if you are only getting your information from one source then you haven't written a speech you have copied an article. Show grace while we are in the virtual world, technology has issues, pay attention and show courtesy if it happens to an opponent or judge. Spreading is becoming a hot topic, let me put it in the most simple terms, do not do it, there are very few people who can spread successfully. I am interested in your ability to discuss, promote and convince, over your ability to bully and perform character attacks. If you want to make a case using only hot button buzz words I will not give in to that sort of conversation, I would rather support a debater whose topic is completely against my core, but who has a great presence and amazing data, than someone whom I agree with but who can not think for themselves and must use the bullying tactic of fear-mongering to communicate.