Jeng,+Amos

**UPDATE FOR LEX 2017:** I haven't judged in a long time, so just go slower than you normally would

**Background:** I attended Byram Hills High School from 2011-2015, debating at the TOC my junior and senior year.


 * __Quick version/general stuff: __**
 * I'll evaluate any argument as objectively as possible
 * **Speaking: ** Slow down on tags and card names, and if you’re numbering a lot of arguments, pause a bit before and after each point.
 * **Extensions: **A dropped card doesn’t need a full claim, warrant, and impact extended, but I want at least some semblance of a warrant and an explanation of the card’s implication. For a card that was not dropped, what I need in an extension completely depends on what warrants are necessary to take out your opponent’s responses (and those warrants need to be 100% extended, obviously).
 * **Other notes: ** I’m really not a fan of huge dumps without any indication of how they interact with your opponent’s claims (this applies to theory, framework, and substance alike): this doesn’t mean that you can’t have a large variety of arguments on the flow, but just make sure that you always sign-post and tell me how each argument functions in the context of where you are. Also, if you’re obviously much better than your opponent, try to make the round as educational for them as possible. I’d really appreciate that.


 * __Particulars: __**


 * Framework: **I like framework a lot, but don’t use that as an excuse to run the most bizarre philosophy there is while expecting me to understand it. I’m open to more dense and obscure positions, but use common sense: if you’re going to run something more unknown/complicated in front of me, lower your rate of delivery and make your extensions in later speeches as comprehensible as possible. I also prefer fewer, well-developed justifications over underdeveloped blips


 * Substance: ** I love a good substantive debate, but I might not be the greatest judge in the world for dense evidence comparison.


 * Theory/T: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Slow down on interpretations and keep these debates as organized as possible. Also, I won’t vote on a shell unless the violation was verified before or during the round. My defaults on T and theory are as follows (but I’m very easily persuaded the other way): drop the debater, meta-theory only precludes the theory it's run on, competing interpretations (reasonability needs a brightline, fairness > education, T > theory, no RVIs


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Tricks: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I'm all for them, but i <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">f I feel like any of the analysis you’re giving me when extending a trick is new, I’ll allow for your opponent to make new responses to said arguments in their next speech. I’m also partial to embedded clash between a dropped trick and other arguments on the flow, as long as the debater points this out when responding to the trick


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">K’s: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I'm fine with K's, but I'm not the biggest expert on critical literature. Just explain your argument like you would any other one.

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Arguments I personally don’t like hearing all that much (but will still evaluate): **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">AFC/AEC
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Non-topical AFFs
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Disclosure theory (unless it’s on a hyper-specific advocacy)


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Things you’ll get lower speaks for: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">being a bully
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">being offensive
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">being unclear even after I’ve yelled “clear” several times
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">a failure to sign post
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">mocking your opponent in a way that's rude


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Things you’ll get higher speaks for: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">quick overviews at the top of each rebuttal telling me why you’re winning the round
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">high-quality comparison between arguments
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">a good balance between line-by-line and big picture argumentation
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">thinking on your feet
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">being funny
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">following my speaking guidelines above