Mileo,+Paul


 * Paul Mileo**
 * Douglas High School, Forensic Coach**
 * Years Judging: 10**
 * Rounds on Topic: 20+**

I competed in Policy all four years of High School. I Judged for the years following and have now been coaching for seven years. I coach Policy, LD, PFD and a variety of Speech events.

You may run whatever arguments in the round that you would like. In my opinion is it your round. It is my job as the judge to evaluate them unbiasedly based on the flow. That means if it is not on my flow I can't vote for it.

When judging Policy I default to a Policy Maker/Skills Tester Paradigm. This means I beleive that debate is about comunication. Your job is to persuade the judge to your side of the resolution. On that note I do not find spread persuasive. There are some arguments which can't be properly conveyed at 1,000 words per minute. However, I can follow most spread debates, I may take away speaker points if I feel your delivery is suffering. If I am unable to understand you I will not say "clear" but instead stop flowing and put my pen down.

As far as argumentation, I will view it through the eyes of a policy maker. If you feel that the round should be viewed through a different lens then I welcome that debate as well as any Kritical or theory argumentation. I believe that Theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I expect all competitors to act proffesional and be respectful of each other. I also diskike prep theives, you are either ready to give your speech or you are taking prep. I prefer that tag team CX doesn't occur, since it is a sign of a lopsided team, however the worst that I will do is dock you on speaks. Please let me know before the start of the round if you have any further questions about my preferences.