Giannopoulos,+Charissa

As a judge I am looking for sound argumentation. I expect all of your claims to be warranted and have applicable and substantial impacts back through the criterion level. I see way too many rounds were people simply state a criterion and then fail to give arguments that are able to be evaluated by the criterion (i.e. rights abuse under consequentialism).

I am willing to hear any type of argument and can understand speed. That being said, I prefer debates with less of a focus on theory, kritiks, topicality or generally critical argumentation (I will still evaluate these arguments, I just prefer "straight up" debate). I would also prefer for the debate to not be wildly fast. I am very capable at flowing, but if you are going to quickly, or are inaudible, I will not have your arguments on my flow and this will only serve to hurt you.

What it comes down to is that I am only here to tell tab who did a better job during the round that I am assigned to watch. You will perform the way that you have prepared yourself to preform, and it is not my place to dictate how you choose to participate in your event.