Climaco,+Nico


 * Background:**

High School- competed in policy for 3 years at local CFL tournaments and on the national circuit College- competing in speech in D7 (SNAFU) and the national circuit (Impromptu, Extemp, Informative, Duo, Communication Analysis) Judging- I have currently been judging all areas of forensics (Policy, Speech, LD, PF, etc) and will update this if I die out of a particular event.
 * Briar Woods HS
 * James Madison Unversity


 * Overview:**

To preface everything else listed below, I think debate is your platform and not mine. I will try my best to evaluate your arguments based on the way you present them to me. I will try to evaluate with as little bias as possible. Although I will try my very best to do so, I do have personal biases. Resulting in this, I provided my specific perspectives on common arguments. This list shouldn't be thought of a list of arguments not to run, but should be seen as a guide. If you provide solid warrants and extensions, it should be clear who should win, even if the specific argument is not something I would prefer. If you have any questions besides what's written in here, feel free to ask. No matter what you're going, please give a solid impact analysis at the end of your last rebuttal. This will be updated and revised as the years go on.


 * Theory:**

You have to do some work to make me care. Provide good explanations of 'fairness' and 'education'--what they do, how they interact, and how they are at stake. If you're passionate about theory, I'm all for it, just prove it to me and don't abandon it or give me 10 sec. theory speeches otherwise it'll be washed away in my flow and my mind.


 * Topicality:**

Prove abuse. Don't run Topicality and just expect it to be the number one voting issue when you drop it and it randomly reappears in the 2NR. Extend your standards and elaborate on each speech and you'll get T, but you need to really push for it. Don't give 2 sec. standards In addition, I won't vote on SPECs alone, but if you're able to clearly show how it leaves the other debaters in a double bind, I will vote on that. Overall, I have a standard tolerance for T


 * Kritiks:**

__Running them__
 * Make sure it's competitive with the Aff
 * Understand your authors
 * I appreciate original thinking and research. (i.e.- if its not some random backfile pulled out of a camp)
 * Style is very important. Control the narrative.

__Answering them__
 * CX is a great time to pin things down. Use it to get commitments about the nature of the position, not to nitpick.
 * A lot of aff theory vs. kritiks can work, although it's usually not a voting issue.

__On the Aff__
 * I find it pretty difficult to just compare two performances side by side. I think it's a good idea to have a focal point of your advocacy, something that can be debated about.


 * DAs, CPs, Case, Etc:**

I'm okay with any of these arguments. Just make sure you clearly identify your structure when crafting arguments, such as pointing out your IL or a (L) Turn. Don't assume you've made a turn, when you haven't explained. Please have analysis and elaborate on your arguments. Also, do not double turn yourself. That would just be sad. If you bring up a CP, make sure you clearly show me how you outweigh.


 * Behavior:**


 * I like to hear what you're reading. I appreciate it if you articulate in all parts of your speech. If I can't understand what you're saying, it won't be flowed.
 * If you like to make your speech humorous, that's fine..but make sure you explain your point and don't be funny, just to be funny.
 * Misplaced aggression is bad
 * Have clash and debate, don't force judge intervention.


 * Speaks:**

I'm okay with speed, but please, please be clear. To get good speaks, enunciate your words, number your arguments, slow down on taglines, authors, and structural indicators, and make clear, warranted extensions. If you don't understand your authors and cannot explain your authors to an audience that may not have prior knowledge to the content, then don't expect to receive high speaks. I don't hand out 30s unless you really earn it and if you do great, the highest I would normally give would be a 29/29.5, but I won't go below a 24.


 * LD:**

LD is based on "values" and I will evaluate it as such. Although some people have taken more of a progressive, non-traditional form of LD leaning more towards a policy-style, I am okay with that. The same standards apply to LD as the previous thoughts written above.