Wolnisty,+John

Coach - Tempe Preparatory Academy - 10 years

I judge LD and PFD. I have judged policy, but it's not really my bailiwick. Speed - if it's clear OK, otherwise I'll say "clear" once then zone out. I **do** value good speaking skills and will factor that into my overall decision.

In all fairness, I do **not** walk into the round with a blank slate. I do assume both sides have an equal burden. I do assume the resolution was worded in such a way to provide equal grounds for debate. Feel free to argue that it's not so, but you're really going to have to be convincing. All that means I rarely, if ever, buy a kritik in LD.

I lean towards the traditional when it comes to LD. I like to hear debates that cover the big picture of the topic then use multiple supports to bolster that argument. I don't like to hear 20 blips then the debater proclaiming with glee "he dropped contention 17, I win!". I will use what both debaters have told me to weigh the specific arguments and decide how much a specific drop harms your side. So, a good thing to do is weigh //your// (and //your opponents//) arguments and tell me which are the important ones in the debate and why. That gives me something to go on. I also expect impacts from your arguments. Why is it important and how does it affect the validity of the resolution. I expect CX to be more than just asking for contentions you didn't hear. I listen to CX and it can factor into my decision, however you should always mention things __you__ thought were important during CX in a later speech.


 * Things you might want to know:**

I have "real" job as an software engineer. I don't spend endless days in Starbucks reading the latest philosophy rags. I'm not going to know the stuff you're running and thus not vote for it. I'm a man of science, not letters. I have a tendency to like facts, figures, stats and evidence over philosophical poofiness. Break things down for me and show me how __you__ answer the resolution correctly.

I expect civility in the round. Ad Hominem attacks, spreading as a tactic, and just generally being mean I frown upon. The world already has enough jerks, don't be another one.

I normally will **not** ask for cards after a round unless a competitor asks me to on suspicion of an ethics violation. If your card wasn't clear the first time, well I guess I didn't get it. Like I said at the top, I still value good speaking skills.

I have absolutely no tolerance for what I'll call "unsportmanlike conduct" in a round. I've seen too much of this in PFD. I will drop you for being a jerk. I also really, really like it when teams use studies and examples that are not the same dang 3 examples everyone and their dog is also running. Do some digging, give me something unique, fresh and different. Work on making this a decent debate event and not add fuel to the fire for the detractors of PFD.
 * Notes for Public Forum debaters:**