Quinto,+John


 * I'm for hire for in the DFW area, (anywhere within 30 minutes from Plano) I'll judge any event.**


 * __Background__**

I participated in speech and debate for 3 years at Wylie High School, one of those years was spent competing in Public Forum (although I began to learn policy about halfway through) and the other two were spent competing in Policy. During that time, I’ve competed in both the TFA and UIL circuit in policy, (although I’ve competed more UIL than TFA) so I’m used to both styles of argumentation, however, while debating I gravitated more toward TFA style. I’ve also done some light Congressional Debate throughout and light extemporaneous speaking my sophomore year.

In Policy, I ran every type of argument in high school except for doing the performance style of debate. Other than that, I’ve run kritiks, counterplans, went for theory and framework, ran kritik affirmatives and advantages, etc.

I am not debating in college at the moment.

Wylie High School The University of Texas at Dallas
 * Affiliations**


 * If you've got questions you can contact me at:**

johnqjudging@gmail.com


 * __Running the Round__**

I’ll ask that anyone who can time the round times the round so that if someone forgets to start their timer, there’s still more running. Prep starts after I ask and you respond “yes” or just give me silence. Prep stops when either you are ready to speak and/or have finished modifying the document you are reading off of. Also, before starting any speech, including cross-examination, ask if everyone is ready and give necessary evidence before the speech starts.

If you’re using laptops, be sure to have a viewing laptop, flashdrives, and adequate power sources. If you don’t, I’ll try to provide them, but if I can’t, you’re out of luck.

Speed, open cross-examination, extended cross-examination, prompting, ins and outs/the Emory switch, handing evidence to your partner while they’re speaking, peeking over your opponent’s shoulder while they’re reading, etc. are fine if both teams agree and the tournament/event policy and potential mission allows it.

Signposting and roadmaps are a must. I’ll still try to flow arguments that you don’t map out or signpost, but if I miss them because I’m lost, don’t be surprised.

If you’re not clear, I’ll say “clear” as many times as I have to.

At the end, or even during the round, I may call for evidence so don’t start closing documents or putting away files until a little time after the 2AR. I’ll also disclose if you ask and if you’ve got questions ask me via email or after the round.

On dress, I know the “standard” for debate is fancy suit and tie stuff, but I really don’t care. Do what you have to do to be comfortable as long as it is legal.

If other judges in the room have a more strict way of running the round than I do and they really don’t want me running it my way, I’ll have to let them have their way. One of the last things I want is a 0AC or 3NR amongst judges, coaches, and tournament officials.


 * Rules:**

I have no choice but to follow any rules the tournament may have, no matter how much we all hate it. But, it's pretty clear that you breaking the rules was unintentional, I'll try a warning and/or speaker point deduction. If it comes to a disqualification, I'll inform you immediately and give the option to continue the round or stop.


 * Speaker Points:**

I assign speaker points based on how much I think you deserve to make it to outrounds or place high. Starts at 27 and moves up and down from there.

__**Short Paradigm**__

In order for me to vote on an argument, it has to be well defended and run. As in for example, I'm not going to vote on some random T that you ran for 5 seconds at the bottom of the 2NC with the only explanation being "They dropped T, vote for us."

I’m tabula rasa, but if I’m not given a framework to view the round, I default to policymaker.

In theory debates and topicality, I default to real abuse, but can be swayed to vote on competing interpretations.

Try not to be rude without reason, and I say "without reason" because I understand that some arguments or opponent attitudes may require or provoke a certain degree of rudeness.

__**Standard Paradigm**__

I’m tabula rasa, so I don’t care what you run or what you do. Just give me a reason to vote, a mechanism to weigh, and make sure everything is clear to me. However, I default to policymaker, which is the standard plan versus status quo or counterplan, if not given a framework. I usually won’t vote off winning a certain stock issue or defensive argument unless there is literally zero reason to do the plan.

In order for me to vote on an argument, it has to be well defended and run. As in for example, I'm not going to vote on some random T that you ran for 5 seconds at the bottom of the 2NC with the only explanation being "They dropped T, vote for us."

Try not to be rude without reason. I say "without reason" because I understand that some arguments or opponent attitudes may require or provoke a certain degree of rudeness.


 * Framework/Theory**

At the beginning of the round, nothing is abusive until it is labeled as abusive. I will buy any theory or framework argument as long as it is defended well, but default to requiring real abuse unless a potential abuse framework is presented.


 * Topicality**

I default to real abuse, but I’ll admit that I’m easily persuaded to vote on competing interpretations since it’s how I debated.


 * Case Arguments (Stock Issues)**

Under my usual paradigm, these will only be used in impact calculus with your offcase arguments. However, I will switch to a stock issues paradigm if you can convince me to, however, I will admit that this may be the hardest paradigm to win me on.

When debating through the stock issues framework, I’ll view the plan as a product. As in, will I need this product? Does it even work? Things like you’d see in reviews.


 * Disadvantages**

Make impact calculus arguments and win every component of the disad necessary. You don’t need a specific link to make me buy the disadvantage.


 * Counterplans**

All you have to do is win that your counterplan is better than the plan and that you’re mutually exclusive.


 * Kritiks**

Once again, you won’t need to win a specific link unless your opponent makes it to where you do. Just make sure I understand the assumptions behind the K and that you give me a way to weigh the impact.

If you really want to know if I know about your K, just ask me.