Yang,+Jim

This is my fourth year judging parliamentary debate as a lay judge.

I expect the debaters to speak clearly and not spread. If you speak too fast and I do not understand what you said, I can not consider it in weighing my decision regardless of its importance. More often than not, I take note when a debater slows down to say something as a means of emphasis, and I will take that to mean the debater thought this argument was important in the round. As such, this is the best way to connect as argument with me.
 * Presentation: **

As a courtesy, speakers should accept at least one POI from the opposing team, especially after a Plan text is read. Above all, be professional and polite.

I prefer that the government team to establish the round as a policy structure, with clear definitions and a plan, and to weighing according to a value criterion. This allows me as the judge to clearly weigh the voters.
 * Format: **

I value the clarity of your logic over the mumbling of cryptic, irrelevant philosophy. Using an analogy to illustrate your points is a much better approach for a judge like me. If your opponents drop an argument, don't just say they dropped it, communicate the importance and the impact of the dropped argument. I will primarily weigh the debate on the impacts of the contentions, not whether a team has more contentions. In other words, quality over quantity.
 * Winning the debate:**

Supplement your arguments with both evidence and logic. If you can not provide logic as to why such and such evidence would be true or would happen, then I will assume you made it up. Likewise, provide evidence to back up your logical claims. I keep up with most current events, so they are the best source to reference in a debate for me.

The team with the most logical and impactful arguments will win the round.