Sarkissian,+Alex

Alex Sarkissian

I primarily judge speech events, but if I am needed to fulfill a judging obligation for debate, I will.

I have experience judging LD and PF. In short, I'm looking for clear, well-supported argumentation. I still value the power of rhetoric in this activity, and I find it persuasive. I particularly enjoy good evidence comparisons.


 * I consider myself to be a very "lay", traditional judge. I'm not the judge for the TOC crowd**.

Pointers:
 * Speed: No. You can speak at a reasonable pace, but I don't understand spreading. If I can't understand you, then I can't vote for you.
 * I'm not familiar with the jargon. At all.
 * Theory: No, because I really don't have experience with it.
 * Policy arguments: I'm not familiar with them, I know about plans/counterplans and that's about it. They're fine, explain them well. Don't really know much about other case positions.
 * Ks: I don't know the literature, and I definitely am not a fan of discourse Ks. If you decide to run a K, slow down, have a clear alt and **explain it.**
 * Presumption: there's always something to vote on, I don't buy it.
 * No spike-y arguments to blow up in a rebuttal speech. My threshold for a response to these is low.
 * Be civil in round.
 * Speaker points: I'm used to lay tournaments, so I'm probably more generous than most.
 * If it's not mentioned here, I probably haven't heard about it/don't know what it is and you shouldn't do it...

I'm a traditional judge. I enjoy a good, evidence-based round at conversational speed. Keep in mind that my experience is limited. **Write my ballot for me at the end of your rebuttals.**