Hernandez,+Daniel

**__Experience__** I have competed in public forum, student congress, policy, and Lincoln Douglas debates throughout both high school and college. I have placed in several tournaments and went to nationals for the NFCFL in 2014. I also major in political science and minor in legal studies.
 * __Arguments__ **

The first speaker should define all relevant terms in the resolution before they begin presenting their contentions. If they do not do this, the second speaker must define terms according to their own definitions. If terms are not defined by either side, the interpretation of the resolution will be at my own discretion. All contentions must be linked back to the value and value criterion the debater has chosen for the round. If they do not link back to their value and criterion, the debater will not have properly shown the logical conclusion to accept their contention as upholding their value, and thus, their contention will hold no weight. As far as definitions in the debates go, I am mostly interested in getting a clear understanding of how each debater chooses to define their terms. I would prefer it if the entirety of the debate was not consumed with simply battling back and forth with no consensus on actual definition. Evidence is extremely vital to the debate. If evidence is unable to be presented then it will be disregarded from the debate and the debater will be severely penalized. Statistics are actually important to backing up a philosophical argument and will be counted favorably. At the end of each debater’s last rebuttal, the debater should present voting issues. These should be rather clear-cut and logically show why they should have won the round. If they do not present voting issues, it will be entirely up to my discretion as to whether arguments stand as being valid, or are rejected. Either way, it is my decision, but reminding me of key issues and having the debaters assign weight to their arguments is helpful in me making my decision.

**__Speaking/Presentation__** The overall presentation of the speeches is not nearly as important as the arguments and logic involved in constructing a case. A perfect delivery can still lose to a mediocre one, should the mediocre one have an overall better case. I am okay with debaters presenting their speech quickly, as long as it is a reasonable speed. It is up to them to determine how fast they want to go. However, if they are spreading too fast, I will signal to them that it’s too fast be dropping my pen in a noticeable fashion. If they continue to spread even after I’ve dropped my pen, it is not my responsibility to flow their speech. I will do the best I can to catch everything they say, but again, it is no longer my responsibility at that point. Signposting is a vital part to ensuring maximum comprehension in any judge. I assume that all seasoned debaters will make use of this tool, as it will assist in making sure that I do not miss any of your points/argument.

I am okay with the use of a road map, but it must be quick and debaters will not be allowed to present any parts of their argument during this untimed road map. Proper etiquette is expected, but is not necessary to win the round. As long as the debaters are behaving rationally and not ridiculously, then they should be fine. Personal attacks will result in a loss of speaker points, and could potentially be the deciding factor in the round. Extreme violations will result in an automatic loss. Should I feel that the debate is getting to verbally abusive, I will most likely step in to deter the incident. PLEASE DO NOT make sounds or laugh during the opponents speaking time. It is extremely rude and I will be forced to deduct points.

I tend to allow somewhat of a grace period in regard to the conclusion of a debater's speech. However, should the debater blatantly take advantage of this and continue to speak indefinitely, I will be forced to cut them off and prevent them from winning the round overall. Any arguments said after the time limit is up will not be counted as being part of the speech. Regarding cross-examination, if time expires in the middle of a question being asked or answered, I will allow that question and/or answer to be finished. If the debater answering the question after time expires goes off on a tangent, I will cut them off, subject to my own discretion. Prep time, however, is strict, and I will not allow debaters to stall without using prep time.

I will allow debaters to use their phones to time themselves, however, all electronic devices must be on airplane mode. If they are caught receiving any texts or using their devices to research during the round, they will automatically lose the round. Furthermore, I will allow laptops and tablets to be used in a debate, as long as the do not make noise or connect to the internet. Also, should you need to present any factual sources, please make sure that it is the original source and not simply a quote on a word documents.