Solomon,+Hiyawan

**__Background:__** I debated for four years at Immaculate Heart High School'13 in Los Angeles, California. I currently attend Claremont Mckenna where I also debate. While in highschool I competed primarily on the national circuit but I also attended many local and traditional tournaments. The last tournament I competed at was NFL Nationals and although I taught and judged rounds at camp (VBI), I may not be up-to-date on "new jargon" on the topic.That being said, remember to be clear throughout the debate!

__**Short Version: **__ I will evaluate whatever arguments you make in round. Speed is acceptable as long as you are comprehensible.

__**Long Version: **__

//**A. Substance **//

I will try my best to objectively evaluate all arguments made in the round. Generally, I begin by evaluating which framework has been won and from there I adjudicate who has better offense to that framework. I am open to other mechanisms of adjudicating the round as long as you are clear about what metrics I must use.

//**B. Theory **//

I view theory as a necessary tool in debate. However, I have a higher threshold for theory arguments made when there is no abuse in round. In most cases I believe theory should be a reason to drop "X" argument or practice but feel free to make arguments as to why the debater should be dropped. I am open to reverse voting issues. Additionally, when making "reasons to prefer"/"standard level" arguments, I have a lower threshold for the justifications you provide in terms of fairness or education. For instance, it's obvious to me that __ground is important in terms of fairness__.

//**C. Critical Positions/ Kritiks**//

As a heads up, I find Kritiks and Critical positions fascinating. I'm pretty familiar with critical literature but if you plan on reading a critical position, you have the burden of ensuring the arguments you make are clear if you want me to vote for you on it.

//**D. Speaker points **//

 I average 27.5. Generally the range of speaker points I give is between 25 and 30 excluding cases where a debater is rude/offensive either to his/her opponent or to me. The more articulate, clear, and innovative you are the better speaker points you will receive from me. Clash, clear weighing, perceptual dominance, and good debate practices are all things that will help you get higher speaker points from me.

//**E. Random stuff that you should probably be aware of **//

__1) Cross-examination:__ I believe Cross-Ex is binding. Remember to be clear and articulate both with your questions and answers. I also believe it is possible to be aggressive in cross-ex without being rude or offensive.

__2)Things people do in round:__ Do not make very noticeable faces during your opponent's speech. I am not stupid- a slightly confused/blank face is enough to help me realize that "x" argument your opponent is making is not true or was not dropped and that you want me to take note of that. Also, please do not establish a hostile setting at any point in the round. Remember, your behavior throughout the round in addition to the substance of the round is what makes up the speaker points you'll get.

__3) Extensions:__ I expect you to extend your arguments; specifically, please extend the warrants in your arguments. However, I have a lower threshold for extensions affirmative debaters make and extensions of arguments that are conceded in the round. Even for theory debates you need to extend all parts of the shell and the warrants in the standard-level arguments that are made.

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;">**Feel free to ask me questions either by email ( hsolomon17@cmc.edu ) or before the round. Remember to be nice and have fun!**