Esnard,+Bobby

__My debate experience:__

I debated for 4 years at The Bronx High School of Science (from 2006 - 2010) and competed at all levels (local, regional, national, etc.). I currently attend Dartmouth College. As an aside, I don't have very much experience judging, which means that all of the things below are subject to change and that you should ask me more specific questions in round.

__How I judge (broadly):__

In most rounds it is not necessary to subscribe to any paradigm with a name (truth testing, comparative worlds, etc.) so I won't do that. What is most important is that you establish the framework for how the round is to be evaluated and establish links to that framework. Please do not assume a framework without proving that it ought to be used and please resolve the framework debate (if you and your opponent use two different types of frameworks, you need to argue about which one I ought to use.). In giving a decision calculus you must explain the order in which I should evaluate arguments because I am fairly tab in that I will vote off of any kind of argument so long as it is, in fact, an argument and you do, in fact, make it a voting issue (unless I find it obscenely offensive in a racial, religious, sexist way, etc.). That being said, I will judge the round how you tell me to unless there is something wrong with the way that you tell me to (admittedly, that may require a degree of subjectivity, so to avoid that problem please give a thorough and accurate decision calculus, which includes both your and your opponent's arguments).

__Specifics:__


 * Speed -** is fine (clarity is great too. I will not yell clear, I just won't flow and you will lose speaks)
 * Theory -** is also fine. I like hearing topic and round specific references within the shell, otherwise it just sounds like general griping (which I will listen to as well, but is far less persuasive). If you run theory to: avoid substantive debate, screw over your opponent because they don't know anything about it, confuse the debate, and the like (read: when you don't actually believe there is abuse), then you will, in all likelihood, lose speaks. I will judge theory on a reasonability level or in terms of competing interpretations (whichever you tell me to use). I'm not opposed to well-justified RVIs. I will not vote for disclosure theory.
 * Extensions -** are rarely made properly. I expect you to extend all parts of the argument (claim, warrant and impact) and explain how it functions in the greater context of the round (how it interacts with your and your opponent's arguments). That being said, even if an argument is dropped, I find it very unpersuasive to try to exclude huge portions of your opponent's case/evidence using one nicely hidden clause, sentence, etc. If you establish a burden that your opponent must meet, even if it is dropped, I will not evaluate it if I find its original articulation vacuous, confusing, not in the form of an argument or logically inconsistent with the other arguments in the round. If you believe that an argument may take out large portions of another case, then I expect you to say that when you first make the argument (the same goes for burdens; if you think that your opponent has a burden to meet before all other things are considered, then you must articulate that argument the first time it is made).
 * Speaks -** I've been told that I give low speaks. (I think average is a 26.5- maybe that's rough, but you can work your way up or down in round), and I don't give out a 30 just because it was a good round. I may give you better speaks if the tournament does not have a run-off round and I want to make sure that you break.
 * Flex prep -** No. There must be a CX in which no prep is done. You may, however, ask questions during prep if your opponent agrees to it at the //beginning// of the round.
 * Calling for evidence -** I will do it if I need to, but usually only if there is a dispute regarding the evidence within the round. If you do not want to share your evidence with your opponent that is fine, but you will lose speaks.
 * Miscut evidence -** Will be thrown out at //least.// I reserve the right to drop you and tank your speaks depending upon how egregious the violation is.
 * New arguments -** Don't make them in the 2AR or the 2NR (obviously there are cases where this is not applicable e.g. defending/extending your case) I don't really like extension evidence if it provides another independent warrant for a claim. If an argument your opponent makes is new, please call them out for it during your next speech. If you make new arguments in the 2, you will lose speaks.
 * Presumption -** is dumb; I will resolve the debate to the best of my ability.

__Pet peeves:__ (Doing any of the following during a round will likely result in speaker point deductions:)

- Banging things loudly (this includes loud stomping) - Yelling - Being unfriendly - Fishing for a concession during CX (I hate it when debaters ask something like "Was the war in Iraq just?" and then try to use the answer as a concession later in the round when clearly not all relevant factors could have been considered in CX) - Talking over someone during CX - Finishing arguments that were not nearly done when the timer beeped (you should finish your sentence, but don't read the impact if you didn't get to it in time) - Having all of your responses prewritten (that might be controversial, but I don't care)