Shields,Mario

ARE ASKING THE JUDGE QUESTIONS ABOUT PREFERENCES DON'T IMMEDIATELY DISREGARD THE ADVICE. IF YOU ARE GONNA WING IT EITHER WAY JUST GO IN BOLDLY SO AT LEAST THAT WAY YOU DONT REJECT THE JUDGE BEFORE YOU GET A CHANCE TO MAKE A GOOD IMPRESSION
 * < Shields, Mario || MOST IMPORTANTLY YOUR 1ST QUESTION SHOULD NEVER BE HOW ARE YOU WITH SPEED AND IF YOU

__Policy Rounds__

I strive to be a Tabula R. judge but I evaluate the round with Stock Issues and Presumption in play. First and foremost I see debate as an event where communication and persuasion are key. The better you tell the story the more clear my ballot is. I am decent with speed but better with clarity and signposting. I can't over stress the word SIGNPOST. I tend to flow on paper and if you keep my flow clean and structural rather than just 1 long idea down 10 pages (I want columns and rows that flesh out the story). I like the challenge of CX Debate strategy and really approve of analytics bc it allows for me to connect with you as clever individuals who happen to debate. I'm more big picture by nature.

Negs I recommend that you don't make me flow 15 different positions and then you don't know how to make them useful in strategy ....Furthermore actually take the time to demolish the 1AC, if nothing else you'll capture more stock issues for the win. I love humor and the ability to be clever but be professional at all times. I don't mind open CX but make sure no one person dominates the time especially if it isn't your designated CX time. I like to see good balanced teamwork in round.

Topicality - important stock issue but don't abuse it or waste time if you are going to kick it anyway. Prove the theoretical in round abuse

Kritiks- must be relevant and link in round.. and you must tell me the story and know what you are talking about (or at least make me believe you do)

Counterplans - must have a Net Benefit / be competitive in round and not be overly generic

Perms- Awesome just don't leave me confused on too many 'if then ' scenarios

Framework - I want you to tell me what I should be using to weigh the round and why but keep it from being overly redundant

I start every round with the idea that the Aff will prove to me that their plan/case is good and I should give them the benefit of the doubt unless the Neg proves like in the court of law that the Aff is 'guilty' and violates their burden or the resolution in some way. (THIS APPLIES TO LD AND CX)

__LD Rounds__

I like an interesting opening quote not just I affirm or negate and the AFF should always give me definitions bc I set up my resolutional framework around the definitions they present. If those aforementioned def's are abusive NEGs please call them on it and provide counter defs with compelling reasons to prefer your interpretation of the resolution These are not absolute ... just preferences. Overall I like a great (logical story) and seeing things in your perspective. I prefer conceptual subpoints over spewing 5 extra cards that you really cant expound well in 6-7 minutes of rebuttal. Keep your strategy concise and efficient. Remember that your true goal isn't to create a 1 man Policy Round, but to focus on the premise of the resolution being a good idea/not.

Policy positions (CP's, K's, TShells, ) presented as such in LD rounds do not function to me the same so you have to work harder for less results.

Value - traditionally must uphold and clearly understand what you are advocating

Criterion- must link and validate the value / I might buy new age crazy standards rhetoric only if Neg doesn't call you on it

CX time - I like you to face judge standing and maintain professionalism although a little passion or humor is ok... relax have fun but stay courteous don't take anything personal

Give me well supported contentions in your own words rather than just a bunch of cards/ musings. Hint read the cards and then create a case. I like to hear what you ve found out research wise and I like to see how quick you can react to your opponent in a round ... keeps it interesting. Plan out your 13 minutes of talk time to simple express how you affirm or negate. I don't mean that you have to use less intelligent wording just to simplify how you get to the judge voting in your favor. Stay confident and never let me think you are losing and you have a pretty good chance to win with me. Be humble and have fun... I go with what is on the flow never lose sight of that.

__Public Forum__

Keep it simple tell a good story, confidently persuade... See me as an avg US taxpaying voter that has logic but makes decisions with emotional backing.

mashields@email.com (for further questions or judging inquiries DFW area )

Duncanville HS debater 97-01 UCO College debate 02-03 I tend to not disclose in prelims to keep the tournament moving. I also avoid calling for cards after the round bc in all fairness you had 45 mins or 1 hr 1/2 to prove I promise to give you my insight on the ballot and my goal is to point out where you shine and also show you how to overcome the areas where you can learn to shine. *8-25-2017 ||