Santos,+PJ

I am currently studying engineering at Northwestern University, so I'll probably be judging mostly around there.

I debated for 3 years for Randolph High School, went to NDF and NSD, and bid once, so I'm fairly qualified to judge.

I evaluate rounds by starting with whatever I am told is the top layer of the debate, and work my way down until I find an argument that is won and I am told is sufficient. I don't care how you structure your case, but I would like to be told how I am supposed to evaluate it / why arguments mean you win / etc. I prefer to not vote on a "risk of offense," and I will only do that if there are no arguments that are definitively won (which I hope will never happen). I will probably have a bit more lenient threshold for aff debaters (at least on defense, especially on defense on theory, maybe more) because giving a solid 1AR is rough.

Speed: Back in the day I could handle just about anything, however I'm not expecting to do oodles of judging. That means that it will take me a couple of rounds to get used to flowing again, so keep that in mind. I'll say "clear," a few times if needed, and I really appreciate lots of signposting, especially with analytics because without them rounds get really muddled. Also, if you are running something complicated, I'd probably understand more of it if you read slowly. I won't call for evidence unless I mess up flowing something I should have, or if one debater calls out a miscut card/etc. That means if I miss it because you are going too fast / unclear, I probably won't vote on it.

Theory: I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I'm more than happy to vote on it if it is run. I don't default to competing interpretations, in fact I don't like it all that much, and unless you spend some serious time justifying it when you first run your shell I won't vote someone down if they answer theory without a counter-interpretation. I like the idea of RVI's, and I could definitely see myself voting for them if they are run correctly. Also, don't be that guy who runs 6 pics and then tries to win on education. Nobody likes that guy.

Philosophy: I really enjoy most analytic philosophy, and post-debate I've even read a solid handful of books. I'd call myself familiar with most branches of it that are run in debate rounds, and if you are reading me someone who is dead and has a German-sounding name I'll probably be pretty happy. On the other hand, I know next to nothing about Continental stuff, but what I do know makes me think it is pretty silly (I don't have any biases against it, it is just I have never heard an articulation of any major Continental philosopher's work that I've 1) understood, 2) agreed with, and 3) thought was applicable to any debate topic). However, if you can explain it to me well enough to not only understand but think is an interesting argument, you'll probably get rewarded by a heaping pile of speaker points. And if you find something new that I haven't heard before (new philosopher, type of argument, etc.), make me understand it, and it makes sense, I'll probably like you a ton. That equals speaker points.

Speaker Points I like being a nice guy, I expect to average around a 27.5, with points added for making interesting arguments / using good technique / telling funny jokes in-round, and points subtracted for being unclear. That means if you sound like a beautiful angel announcing that they just got free Starbucks coffee for the judges BUT you were just reading Cummiskey at me, you probably won't get more than a 28.

After the round, feel free to ask questions about my decision, but as a debater when someone I was watching or just debated actually argued with the judge about their decision, I thought they were a massive tool. Don't do that. I will give you 20 speaks, and draw a frowny face on your ballot.

I feel like that covers most of the stuff people ask before rounds, BUT ask me questions beforehand, in round, instead of giving your 1AR, whatever.