CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

I am a traditional LD judge, having competed for UIL and a bit in of TFA for LD. I value framework debate, resolution, and vote off of offensive arguments only, no defensive argument will be a voter for me, though they do have worth in the round.

I base speaker points off of speaking and presentation, meaning your speech is at a reasonable pace, your speech is clear and understandable, persuasive, and the appearance/physical presentation of the speaker.

I shall consider nearly any argument, should you make it. It is the responsibility of the debater to read the judge and make appropriate calls. A fair warning: I have exposure to theory and limited experience. I do not like theory, spreading, or plans in LD, though that does not mean I will not consider any argument, contention, or rebuttal a debater makes.

Tim Cook, Salado HS

tim.cook@saladoisd.org

I debated in high school and college. I have been coaching for over 40 years.

TFA State

If you run "tricks", I will probably vote against you. Debate is about developing substantive arguments on the topic, not finding abusive trick strategies. You will also probably get the lowest possible speaks I can give.

I will not tolerate speed! I will say clear and then stop flowing. If I don't flow it, you don't get it. I will not be flowing from a doc. Assume low speaks.

Don't run theory unless there is real in round abuse (Not a fan of theory).

K and other progressive arguments (Not a fan). Don't assume I am familiar with the lit on your K. The K should link to the topic, including K affs. We are given a topic for a reason.

I am very traditional! Establish a framework and link offense back to it.

No flex-prep

Flashing part of prep time.

Congress

Prefer clash or topical AGD. Have 2 developed arguments with good evidence. Think think tanks.

Clash and no rehash essential.

Make me laugh! DO NOT BE RUDE OR OVERLY AGGRESSIVE. Have fun.

PO's must run efficient and fair rounds. Don’t make parliamentary mistakes.

Ask me more specific questions.

Speech/Extemp

I have coached multiple UIL State champions, TFA state finalist and TOC finalist.

Answer the question! Have a clear thesis and three germane points. Prefer quality over quantity of evidence. Love AGD to be weaved throughout the speech.

Prefer controlled gestures, not repetitive. Movement should have meaning.

Ask me more specific questions.

LD

Establish a framework and link offensive back. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Theory needs a real abuse story.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

CX

My default paradigm is policy maker. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature.

The K needs to have a pragmatic alt.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

Overview:I am a tab judge and will vote on whatever FW you put in front of me. If I need to default in stock situations, I will default to a comparative justification framework, prioritizing offense and defense. Across all events, I tend to remain the same on most issues, particularly theory. I tend to put theory at the top of the flow and view it as a procedural argument. Furthermore, I tend to prefer more abstract phil arguments, so if you want to run Ks, go for performance, or ask me to engage in a particular role as a judge, I am alright with that.

Please use vcrowson24@gmail.com for email chains and any questions.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

Other prevalent issues:

Clipping Cards:

I consider clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence as intentionally altering the text or highlights in such a way as to detract meaning from the card. I realize that is a pretty broad definition, so if you would like to run some sort of indict and theory argument, here are the standards I hold the card to. Is the alteration of the text germane? Is the alteration of the next meant to recontextualize the article from a different conclusion? I also consider the effects of the change to determine intent. The smaller the difference and impact of the clipping, the more sympathetic I am to the argument that the debater made a mistake.

If you are paraphrasing instead of cutting cards in LD or PF for a more traditional judge or tournament, I am okay with that. Especially if I am the odd judge out on a panel, please do not feel like you need to adapt away from this more traditional style. I would ask that you have the articles accessible if I need to access them to check evidence indicts.

Troll Theory:I would argue 99% of the time, students know what they are doing when they run a more troll-type theory strategy (League Theory, Shoe Theory, Font Theory, ect.). I understand there is value in running these extreme arguments to draw attention to issues in the debate community or a particular debate circuit. However, I also feel that these arguments are run against unsuspecting competitors as an easy way to the ballot. Unless you have, IN FRONT OF ME, asked both your opponent and me if it is okay to run this type of theory, and we have both consented to it, then the round will be a tough uphill battle for you, and I will most likely give you an auto vote down.

Extreme Arguments:I am not very sympathetic to extreme arguments like spark or wipeout. Running these extreme impact turns seems to be a strategy that is used to make an easy way to the ballot when facing a newer competitor or one that comes from a more traditional circuit. Also, I am uncomfortable with allowing students to advocate for things like nuclear war or genocide, so even if your opponent cannot handle the argument on a tech level, I will still most likely vote you down.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Theory/ T:Much like in the overview, I tend to put this at the top of the flow; for me, theory has to be procedural as I am resolving a rule to the game to determine who won the game. For example, I can only determine who won a Game of Magic: the Gathering by determining if the goal was to get my opponent's life down to zero or some other win condition.

RVIs:I think RVIs are crucial for getting the theory offense of the flow for your opportunities. When considering the offense of the RVI, I would like to see work done on the voters for the in-round abuse story. I delineate this standard from what I most commonly see: if you give me some unfairness/ abuse story but do not tell me why I vote on it, I am less inclined to provide you with the offense because I feel that point I would be interfering. When answering the RVI, I am not super sympathetic to just kicking the theory argument, especially if the RVI goes for some sort of time-skew argument; I think the much safer strat for me would be to put actual ink on the argument.

The most important part of T and other theory shells:I see many students who focus on the top half of T and do little work when it comes to extending or interacting with the standards (ground, limits, predictability) and voters. For me to even consider T as an issue in the round, I need to see some sort of offense coming from the bottom half of the argument.

Disads: Definitelyokay with you going for disad offense in the round. If you are in front of a more traditional panel and I am the odd duck, do not feel obligated to go beyond this offense into some other argument if the judge will either a) not flow or b) hold it against you in some way. Oftentimes, I see that students will avoid going for straight defense on the D.A. I am assuming that is because I put such an emphasis on offense in my paradigm. If that is the case, feel free to go for defense and indict parts of the D.A. I just ask that you flush it out, or if you are using it as a time suck, avoid making it a huge voter in the back half of the debate.

C.P.'s: As a straight policy argument, I am okay with all C.Ps. What I see students shy away from in the back half of the debate if they choose to go for straight N.B. offense is extrapolating or citing evidence as a reason why I buy the N.B. Be sure to spend some time explaining the evidence. This is not so much because I do not flow; rather, I like to make sure I am not interfering with the net benefit, as that seems easy to do. Of course, I understand that most of you will go for a more theory-oriented argument on the C.P., so here is a summary of my thoughts. Multipleworlds: Yes, I evaluate all C.P.s through a multivariate argumentation lens; however, because these types of arguments create a different space, I buy perms and conditionality as its own space as well. In other words, I am okay with you, waiting to go for the test in the last debate speech.

Kritiks:

These are my favorite arguments to evaluate; however, please do not use them as an easy way to the ballot, which I think can happen in two ways. First, debaters will use the technical nature of the Kritik to overwhelm more trad circuit students or newer debaters. Second, debaters will use identity politics, not their identity, to win the round. Please DO NOT exploit other people's identities and experiences to get my ballot; this will be an auto-vote down if it occurs.

In terms of evaluating links, this is where Kritik debates can get messy for me. I find that most debaters will read literature for the link and focus more on the impact of the K itself. I understand that this is a time choice; however, keep in mind that the more specific the link, the easier it will be to pull the trigger of the K. Often, I think this issue can be solved with a particular FW for the K.

I do put the alt at the top of the flow as a method of framing unless told otherwise. Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, resolving the impacts of the K requires me to view the round through the alt mechanism of the K.

In terms of authors a literature, I am most comfortable with gender, set. col. and biopower type literature. I am familiar with most other common K lits, but if you are reading someone you want to make sure I know, feel free to ask, and I can give my knowledge of that particular author or literature.

Lincoln Douglass Debate:

Regarding progressive or more circuit-style LD, please see my above paradigm, as I feel this will answer most of your questions.

Trad and UIL Style LD:

I try my best to adapt to students insofar as letting them the types of arguments they would like to run. However, I would discourage you from running highly technical arguments in a traditional LD setting. I totally get that winning on tech is an easy way to the ballot. However, I think especially at smaller tournaments; keep in mind this may be one of the few tournaments your opponent may get to attend within the year.

Value Framing:

I have four standards when considering values as a functional for framework:

1)It's an end in itself and necessarily apropos to another value. This generally means the value should have more terminal impacts (not necessarily existential) coming out of the 1AC.

2) I am generally sympathetic to intrinsic links to the resolution as a form of offense for the debate. I think debaters ought to qualify this offense by telling me what they are bringing to the debate and using that value to meet the intrinsic part of the resolution.

3) Values should impact a world generator, meaning I should have a clear idea of the world I will live in when I sign my ballot.

4) Values should have some inherent competitiveness towards other frameworks unless you go for some permutation or link turn on framing.

Furthermore, values are inherently abstract as they seek to generate space or a world. However, unless you want me to go straight off/def for the round or plan to collapse, I think providing some sort of phil framing for a lens to your impacts is a good idea.

Criteria

Opposite to the value, I think the criterion for one particular framework should be specific. Generally speaking, I would argue this revolves around the brightline of the criterion. Totally understand that bright lines are controversial, and some would even say that criteria do not produce a specific brightline, or if they do, interps and definitions vary. With that being said, here is how I evaluate a brightline:

1) Brightlines should be active as they either decrease or increase sunstance. In other words, criteria should have a verb to describe the action of the framework to achieve the value.

2) The brightline ought to be measurable, even if abstract. Using terms like increase, decrease, and maintain is totally fine; however, I need a metric to determine if the ball moved. The less work I have to do, the more inclined I am to pull the trigger and avoid interference.

3) The criterion should be intrinsic to the value. I think if you do not go for an intrinsic link, I am much more sympathetic toward link turns as a method for gaining access to the framework.

Standard: I am okay with standards; just be sure you give me a way to pref your offense under the standard. In other words tell me why my ballot approving the proof is a net good.

LD: I've honestly never competed in LD debate. I don't like tricks and I would like to be walked through philosophical arguments. I am open-minded about the types of arguments applied, though you should avoid using LD-specific jargon. With that in mind, I did CX, so impact calc is familiar territory. Please still keep in mind any applicable preferences that I have listed below.

As a traditional judge, I prioritize arguments with compelling real-world policy implications. You should focus on how/ if/why a particular policy should be successfully implemented and advantages/disadvantages of the policy. While I lean towards evaluating debates through this lens, I am open-minded about different argument styles and won’t dismiss them based on personal preferences, but I value a cohesive argument. All different argument styles implemented should be directly related to one another and to the opponent's case. Below are some common argument styles and my thoughts on them:

Topicality (T): There is a time and place for topicality arguments, but overuse dilutes the potential for true discussion and education within the debate room. If there is a blatant issue with a team being off topic, you are welcome to discuss this. Usually, however, debaters have extensively refined their arguments over a long period of practice and their arguments are almost always on topic.

Disadvantage (DA): Disadvantage arguments are a critical part of the debate. I expect them to be specifically tailored to the affirmative case being challenged and congruent with all other arguments presented. A thoroughly developed and well-reasoned DA can have a significant influence on my decision.

Kritik (K): I value philosophical discourse and will strongly consider compelling K arguments made. However, I prefer all kritiks to be related to policies. Please do not kritik presentation/performance (ie argument that language used by other speakers is harmful) or debate as a whole (ie speakers are encouraged to spread which reduces educationality of debate) as these issues will be addressed as I assign speaker points. An example of an acceptable kritik: CP focuses only on human benefit which is anthropocentric and environmental impact is not considered enough. This is a philosophical argument tied DIRECTLY to the policy presented by the other team. Any kritiks regarding presentation of opponents and debate as a whole will not be convincing to me.

Counterplan (CP): Counterplans are effective tools when executed well. A clearly articulated and well-run CP can significantly bolster your position. Be sure to cohesively tie any DA or K arguments into your CP argument. If these arguments clash, I will not be convinced by either (and the opposing team should/will point this out). For instance, if you run a DA claiming that a particular policy will hurt the environment, but your CP plan doesn't change any aspect of the environmental issues of the affirmative's argument, you will hurt the credibility of your case.

Framing: A compelling framework argument will be highly influential on my decision. I expect framework arguments to be specific and strongly tied to the core of your case argument. Example: team argues I should prioritize environmental impact of policy in my evaluation of debate round. In this case, I expect to see that DAs of opponent's plan are negative environmental impact and CPs help mitigate environmental impact. If framework arguments do not support the core of your plan, they will not be impactful.

---

Additionally, it’s essential to extend and develop your case throughout the round. If an argument is not revisited, I may interpret it as conceded. Also, if your argument is unclearly or incorrectly explained, you lose credibility. Thorough engagement with and challenges to the case are vital for a strong debate performance. Here are some ways to enhance the clarity of your argument:

Flowing: Explicitly signposting the flow and explaining its relevance is non-negotiable. If you fail to organize your speech effectively, it may hinder my ability to follow the debate. Please provide an off-the-clock roadmap prior to speaking so I don't miss anything.

Speaking: Prioritize clarity over speed. My comprehension of your argument is your responsibility. If you speak too fast and I miss something, I will not be able to consider it in my decision making. I prioritize well-articulated and sensical arguments over quantity of arguments. If you have prepared extensively, as I assume you have, you will be capable of clearly and concisely explaining your case within the allotted time."Spreading" or speaking extremely fast is highly discouraged because I won't be able to understand anything you are saying and if I can't understand you, I can't know what your arguments are. 3-5 well-articulated and defensible contentions that cohesively tie together to explain your case will be much more impactful than 10 or more rushed arguments. Seriously, don't spread. Again: my understanding of your argument is YOUR responsibility. I expect clear communication.

---

Lastly, I prioritize integrity and respect within the debate room. Please adhere to the following principles:

Fairness: Fairness is a foundational principle. I will ask for a copy of the case from the affirmative for reference. You cannot talk outside of prep time. If you do I will first issue a verbal warning, then start your prep time timer and deduct speaker points. If out-of-turn speaking continues after prep time is used up, this is considered cheating. If you suspect any issues regarding fairness within the debate room please let me know after the round is over.

Respect: I highly value respect within the debate room. Debate can be stressful, especially when you are passionate about the topic, but disrespect is NEVER acceptable or productive. Please politely and concisely ask/answer questions during cross-examination, and don't talk over each other. Be respectful of CX time and don't over-explain once your point is made. Any signs of blatant disrespect, such as raising your voice, insulting remarks, persistent interrupting, bullying, offensive language, or hate speech is strictly prohibited and will ultimately result in a loss.

---

I look forward to seeing you soon and am excited to hear your thoughts on this year's topic. If you need any specific accommodations please let me know so we can work together to make this an educational and constructive experience.

CX: I will keep an open mind about any sensible argument. CP should be non-topical and competitive. Please provide roadmaps and follow them. Signposting and structure are appreciated. Follow the roadmap established by the 1NR. Please don't say, "Next off-case" and then move to your next argument. Say, "Next, a Spending DA" or "Next a T violation on the word _____." Arguments should be properly structured and supported. A claim without warrants is not an argument. I am listening to your citations and evidence. I will not intervene or link your arguments for you. I will evaluate the round based on the arguments and under the framework presented. The negative should present offensive arguments on why the affirmative should not win the debate. Conversely, the affirmative should provide offensive arguments for why the negative's arguments should be rejected. Weigh arguments and give me a well-developed impact calculus and clear decision path. If your opponent drops an argument and you do not tell me in a speech, the drop didn't happen unless I have no other way to weigh the round. If I cannot understand you, I will say, “Louder” or “Clear.”

Congress: I value logical over emotional pleas. However, a speaker should demonstrate passion for his/her position. Please do not read a pre-prepared speech verbatim. A speech should be organized, and claims should be supported by credible sources. A speech should be purposeful--defending, refuting, or qualifying points already in the record, clarifying and/or adding to the information on the topic--so please do not merely repeat information already presented by previous speakers. I use the usual parameters for judging a speaker’s presence, vocal quality, delivery, and eye contact.

LD: I value logic over emotion. Convince me that your value is the most relevant and most important. You can do this by communicating your message clearly. For me, it’s all about persuasion and each debater's ability to demonstrate a superior approach to his or her side of the resolution. Clear, concise language that is direct, to the point, and void of jargon is much appreciated. Arguments: I will listen to whatever you want to run. However, whether I'll decide based on those arguments depends entirely on how well you explain how each argument functions in the round. If your opponent drops an argument and you do not tell me in a speech, the drop didn't happen unless I have no other way to weigh the round. Communication/Speed: Speaking quickly is only effective when you form coherent sentences. If I can't understand you, I cannot give you the win. If you have a soft voice, please speak up. I need to hear every word regardless of your speed. I will say, "Louder" or "Clear" or “Slower” twice before putting down my pen as a signal that I am no longer flowing. I'm judging the quality—-not the quantity—-of your arguments, so take the time to make your arguments understood. Please signpost clearly. Be respectful to your opponent.