Krailo,+Christopher


 * LD (judged since 2005)**

I've been involved with debate since 2001. Lots have changed since then... heck I even flow using a laptop instead of pen-and-paper now.

I try to keep my mind open as much as possible in LD. I'm not much of a stickler on styles, but I do like clear and logical argumentation.

I don't mind speed, as long as it's not abusive. Don't try to out-spread your opponent. However, if you're in the 1AR (for example) and you need to boost your speed in order to get in all the arguments you need, then by all means please do so. If you are ever going too fast or are being unclear, I will let you know (if tournament rules allow me doing so).

Signposting is very important to me since I flow on a laptop. Please make sure you mention cross-applications and extensions when you want me to flow them. I can type pretty fast, but I'd prefer if your signpostings are clear and prominent since they help me build a clean flow to judge you better with. Never spread sign-posting, cross-applications, extensions, etc.

I prefer quality arguments to fast blips. Almost always, quality > quantity.

Cards are only useful to me if you tell me how to use it. Let me know why it's important, or how it changes the debate, etc. Just reading a card and moving on probably won't get you much. Warrants and impacts make your card better, your argumentation stronger, and makes you sound more credible.

Definition debates are fine as long as they have some sort of useful meaning that's important to your case. I have no problem voting down somebody who fails to defeat a definition that sets up and validates the other side's arguments.

Make sure there's a clear standard/burden/criterion so I can use it to fairly judge you.

I am very serious about the burden of proof and the burden of clash. It's one of the core "rules" to LD debate.

If you're aff and lose topicality, you will be voted down. This will supersede all other arguments.

I like impact analysis since it helps to make the debate clear, easier to follow, and easier to judge. Please include some in your argumentation.

Some debates warrant clear value debate and some go more for a standards debate instead. I'm okay with either, and it seems both are fairly common. Just make sure it makes sense.

I don't mind weird or offbeat arguments. Just make sure it makes sense. If it might be confusing, be sure to clarify. I've seen some really awesome offbeat arguments before.

Even if I know you are close but wrong on some things (such as arguments using Objectivism, which I've seen debaters misuse many times), I might correct you in the comments, but it won't hurt you until your opponent corrects you.

I try not to keep a poker face. It helps if a debater can tell when their judge is confused, having a hard time hearing, etc.

At the end of the round, (if permitted by tournament rules) you are free to ask any questions I'm allowed to answer. Hopefully I can help you become a better debater. I do, however, reserve the right to not answer some questions.

I dock speaker points for disrespect (you can respectfully tell somebody they're incorrect), poor communication (clear speech is important), and things along that nature. They're speaker points, not argumentation points or dress points. Speak well and you get more. Your coach can judge your dress and the vote in the ballot will judge your arguments. You may argue and CX in any position you like (sit, stand, kneel, one-legged, whatever). All I care about is the speaking, so choose what lets you think and speak best.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I try to be laid back and make the round both fun and educational.


 * CX (judged since 2005)**


 * I try to keep as open of a mind as possible. The only type of argumentation I have problems with is bad topicality argumentation. If you have a legit topicality argument, then I'd love to hear it. However, I hear too many topicality arguments that act more as time-sucks than winning argumentation. Don't bother with blip topicality arguments, since a real topicality violation will warrant an argument longer than an over-simplified blip. **


 * Dense jargon combined with very fast spreading is difficult to flow. I prefer words over acronyms. Please try not to use jargon, but instead replace it with the more common terminology. This will help me understand your case better and gives you better judging. I will probably still understand your case if you use jargon and acronyms, but my mind has to do an extra step (translation) before it gets flowed. **


 * I flow on a laptop, so please be very clear about your taglines. Save the spreading for the card and give me the tagline in a normal tone/rate. Let me repeat: **DO NOT SPREAD YOUR TAG LINES OR PLAN TEXT. **This helps me tag your cards correctly, helps me cross-apply your cards when necessary, and in the end results in better and fairer judging. Besides, it should only cost a few seconds in the total time of your speech to not spread the taglines.**


 * I tend to vote using the framework you give me for voting. I look at the arguments you tell me to, so please do so. A lot tends to happen in a CX round--some arguments are given up, some arguments are made more crucial to the debate--so please direct my attention where you want it. **


 * Don't assume I am familiar with cards or authors. If you want to be really safe, refer to the card via it's subject instead of the author when you mention it later on. **


 * I'm naturally a bit skeptical about hyperbolic impacts (example: everything leads to nuke war). If you have a more realistic impact, then debate on more realistic terms. Hyperbolic impacts are easier to show as being unrealistic anyway. (How many times do we make China or Russia mad... do you really think they're going to nuke us for that?) **


 * I absolutely love good analysis. It's very important and acts as the mortar (where the cards/evidence act as the bricks). Do not forget it. Depth of argumentation can be more important than sheer number of arguments, especially in a close round. **


 * I will almost never read cards after the round. If you failed to present the card clearly and in a manner I can follow, then I am not responsible for not gleaning the specific piece of information you wanted me to. Part of being a good debater is making sure your judge knows what you are saying. **


 * After the round, I can answer questions, provided I want to answer them and if I'm allowed to. I enjoy helping debaters become better, but I will not debate my decision with you. **


 * Feel free to ask questions. **


 * Extemp (judged since 2005)**

I've been involved with extemp since 2001.

Quality of speech is very important in this event.

I will count your use of evidence. I will count every fluency break you make. I will take a general outline of your speech. I then rank you accordingly with the others who have already spoke.

You don't need 20 sources, but you do need more than 1. Be logical with how many sources you have and don't include unnecessary ones (example: "newspaper> said tomatoes are healthy" makes you look silly, while "MSNBC published stats in showing that was 5 times worse in locations with than those without, such as versus " makes you look good).

In the comments, I try to include anything I think you can work on to make yourself a better extemp speaker.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions.


 * Congress (judged since 2005)**


 * I try to make Congress fun for the students. I prefer being the PO, but I can judge if necessary. **


 * If I am the PO, I will announce some sort of a framework for time-management and question-recognition. **


 * If I am the judge, I will be looking for clarity and quality of speech as well as evidence and/or logical argumentation. **


 * Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions. **