Pollock,+Alex

I am former PFer who competed on the national circuit during my high school years.

Basically if you win the flow you win the round, but more on that later. To begin with speaking wise, please speak clearly and make yourself easy to understand. I can handle a little speed, even borderline spreading, but you have to enunciate and conduct yourself in a professional manner for me to put it on the flow. Other than that please do not act like a jerk during cross-fire. I don't flow crossfire; however, I do take note of concessions, and references to an unanswered argument, but you need to reiterate it in your speeches, for me to truly weigh it in a round. That being said, please still take cross-fire seriously, because it can lead to the most important arguments being laid out in the round, and it is by far the most entertaining part of the debate.
 * How I Judge Overall for PF**

I also really appreciate it if you signpost in your speeches. When you are rebutting, extending, reading out your case, please say "Contention", "sub-point", "his/her first response". It makes my job easier, and more importantly it ensures that I do not screw up the flow and miss a rebuttal that can change my decision. If you do not sign post, I will try to follow you, but I will dock speaker points, because I believe that signposting is one of the most critical parts of clarity.

Now for the flow. I am of the persuasion that only way to fairly judge PF is flow it. Here's why: If I do not do a hardcore detailed flow, there is no other way to keep my personal opinions out of the round. NOTE: I will obviously take into account basic knowledge (i.e. someone claims freedom of religion is not in the US constitution, I will obviously not vote off of that, because it is something a common citizen should be expected to know). I only look at the round in terms of what is on the flow, and I do not bring in outside information to factor into my decision. That being said if you are completely abusive to your opponent and win the flow, I will have no problem dropping you whatsoever, on that alone. The ballot says who did the better "debating" not the better yelling.


 * Cases**:

Above all else in the round make sure that your case is **offensive** in nature. Each contention or point needs a claim, a link / warrant, and an impact. Essentially if the resolution is "The United States should ban dogs" I want to hear on Con that Dogs are the greatest things in the world and that there will be serious ramifications that would occur if we banned dogs. That may seem simple, but you don't know how many times people will have a contention that says, "It isn't easy to ban dogs in America", instead it should say "Banning dogs would cause a massive decline in companionship across the United States according to the New York Dog Times, which would lead to an increase in suicides by single men according to the Wall Street Canine." That is a clearly laid out claim with a link to the impact. All Supported by evidence which leads me to my next point.

I am very very very pro evidence. The more evidence the better. I will also ask to see your evidence if it sounds fishy or if the other side questions the evidence in the round, because if you are lying or if you aren't I deserve to know. I was in your shoes and know how it feels for people to make up or misquote evidence and get away with it. You cannot make an unwarranted claim, unless it is really logic based (i.e. you cannot put a price on life, Hitler was bad, Communism is bad, nuclear war is bad). If the other side has evidence to rebut your claim and you try and extend it using no evidence or the same evidence, tell me why you're extension outweighs their rebuttal, because if it comes down to evidence versus logic, then I will always side with the evidence. Question evidence also, ask where it is from, or ask to see it. I really believe that reading evidence should not detract from prep time within reason; however, if you ask for every card, then I am docking the "asking" team's prep time.

I encourage frameworks, but no more than three, unless you can really warrant it, because they can become overly complicated and abusive. I think that they make the round clearer, and lead to the round being less muddled. **Frameworks should be extended in every speech after they have been presented in the debate round. (Obviously if they have countered your framework you need to clarify why your framework is preferable)**

I want rebuttals to attack the other sides case, and the second speaking team can extend their own case in their rebuttal if they so choose. Make sure you use evidence to rebut their claims, unless, once again, your rebutting something that is logic based. Please allot enough time to cover every point on their flow. If you don't have evidence to rebut their point, then use logic, or ask for their evidence if it doesn't sound right. Make sure that you address the other side's framework otherwise your partner needs to address it in the summary, when they are even more crunched for time.
 * Rebuttal:**

I personally believe that summaries are the most crucial speech in any debate round, because summaries are where you see teams start to"pull away". Summaries are also at times the most complicated speeches and they can differ greatly depending on when you are speaking. In the summary, I don't want to hear a "we said this and they said that", I want them to be a big picture speech that says this is what is right, this is how we have proven this, and this is how they have failed to explain why we are wrong.
 * Summary:**

I believe that if you speak first the summary's job should only be to respond to the rebuttal and extend your case that they didn't rebut. However, if the second speaker on the team that spoke second, extended case in his rebuttal, I think that the first speaking team's summary, should try to block his extension or answer it.

If you are speaking second for the summary you have the toughest job in the round. You can do whatever you want, extend case, extend responses, give voters, but please do something significant, and not try to do a bunch of things and not really accomplish anything at all. I personally think you should try and split the summary by extending crucial responses, and extending the most critical part of your case or the part of your case that was rebutted the least if you think your case is all equally important. Finally if there was a heavily discussed issue. Signposting (designating where on the flow you are) is critical in this speech, because a lot happens very quickly.

I want the final focus to be a combination of a persuasive "lay" speech and a flow intensive speech. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you, and then justify it by pointing out on the flow why I should. Extend your points and evidence that weren't rebutted. Extend whatever your partner extended in summary that went un-rebutted. Most importantly, however, give me voting issues. Literally give me something to vote off of you on. Point out inconsistencies with your opponents case that have held true throughout the round, and extend your turns, links, impacts...etc. The summary should have set this up, however, I have been persuaded to change my vote in very clear final focuses that are laid back and just lay out the voting issues.
 * Final Focus:**

Break rounds are where the decisions get more and more difficult. The second half of the speech will make all of the difference in the round. It will all come down to your extensions and how you lay out voting issues. If you do not extend something in summary, and you try to make it a voter in final focus, I will not vote off of it, because you did not have the offense to link into. This is critical, because this can be the difference in really tight out rounds. I want you to use terms like "link", "extend", "offense", "defense", "voting issue", because they make my job much easier in these later rounds. Please remember to extend your frameworks, because this is an easy excuse for me not to vote for you, since your framework defines the scope of your case.
 * FOR Debaters who have me in a break round:**