Debate:

I am looking for style: how well do you deliver your speech?

• are you able to keep the attention of your audience?
• how is your pacing?
• are you emphasizing your points?
• are you adjusting your tone and speed?
• are you making eye contact?
• are you delivering your speech to your audience, or are you just reading your speech?
• did you practice your delivery?

Do you have a claim and a solid line of reasoning?

• are you incorporating your stats/facts or relying on them?
• facts/stats should enhance your argument, not be the center of it.
• are you brining in something new/unique or are you just repeating previous points?
• is your speech well researched?

Rebuttals

• are you able to effectively challenge and counter opposing arguments?
• are your rebuttals grounded in facts, or anecdotal in nature?

Understanding of legislation and how our political system works

• did you do your research?

Speech:

I look for a well-crafted, logical argument supported by data, well-delivered with eye contact, at a normal rate of speech. Relying on anecdotes and speaking too quickly to be easily comprehended are not favored.

I am a parent volunteer judge who professionally works in medicine/science. I look for civil arguments with great logic, command of facts, and sharp minds who can find weakness in their opponents' arguments and further debate.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

Hi! Here's stuff to know about me:

I'm a previous public forum debater, so I am aware of PF rules, lingo, and conventions.

I also do flow PF rounds.

My overall PF philosophy: Strong contentions have (1) a strong, theoretical, logical argument, and (2) a good trail of evidence to back it up. So, don't have a debate 100% in the theoretical realm, and don't have a debate focused solely over who's card is better.

If I have you for a non-PF event (e.g. congress, LD, IEs), I will listen with their different purposes in mind (i.e. I will not hold you to PF criteria, I will will hold you to your event's general criteria). Regardless, you may still gather useful info below (after all, this is what I am used to looking for).

------

In PF...

I appreciate:

-Strong Frameworks and Clear Definitions

-Concision

-Signposting contentions

-Clearly stated impacts and Voters

-Both logical and evidence-based arguments - and note, evidence is only as useful as how you use it.

-Off-time roadmaps

-Line-by-Line responses

-A healthy mix of offensive and defensive strategies

I do not appreciate:

-fast reading

-poor decorum - please don't use accusatory/charged words towards opponents and/or their cases (e. g. "__ is racist", "__ is stupid"). I see this as both degrading to the art and science of debate, and a sign that you're out of good rebuttals. Any legitimate concerns may be raised outside a timed speech.

In general, make it easy for me to vote for you, learn something new, have fun, and give it your best! :)

Stock issues rule!

Be organized, be nice, represent your school well :D

email: mckenzielwebb1@gmail.com