Amestoy,+Thomas


 * School Affiliation **__ Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy __

I judged high school LD for 4 years for my daughters school when she was in the activity. I mostly judged VLD in circuit tournaments, concluding with judging at the TOC in April '13. This was the last time I judged. Here are some things you should consider when debating in front of me.

Although I had judged a lot, I am a former-parent judge and have never debated myself. So, I am a mixed bag as a judge being familiar with non-traditional arguments but not necessarily how they function in the round unless you remind me. Overall, I make my decision based on your debating. I feel my job is to look at the resolution from your point of view then from your opponent’s point of view. Which means that I default to comparative worlds. If you have made the strongest warranted claim, with the strongest impact you are likely to win. Impact analysis at the time of extensions and in your overview of the round is a good idea. As much as possible I will not intervene in the round. Intervention can happen when I'm brought to my threshold for hearing offending ideas and arguments. New arguments should be presented only in your original case followed by clarifications or interpretations of how those arguments function; I will disregard completely new arguments presented in your later speeches. I see my job is to weigh claims based on topicality, warrants on credibility and impacts on magnitude. My RFD's are also not very helpful compared with what I hear on panels, sorry in advance.

My speed threshold was probably lower than most of the circuit judging pool but higher than most of the traditional judging pool. I can handle better speed if you speak up, are articulate and are organized. During your speech I will say “clear” or "loud" if I need to also if you look at me and I’m not writing anything down, youyou're probably going too fast or have me confused as to where I should be attempting to flow this part of your argument. Slow down and emphasize tags especially speeding up for the card is fine. Also I prefer if each card and author in your case is tagged with a number (e.g. Zizek 1, Zizek 2, etc.). Again, emphasize or slow down anything you really want me to write down like the things you think you will extend, etc.
 * __Speed: __**

I like theory arguments but may not be as well versed in them as I appear. So weigh between the different standards. For example, you need to explicitly tell me why topical ground comes before turn ground, etc. My default (meaning what I think this is best for debate) on theory, is that it's a matter of competing interpretations. While I can be persuaded that theory is an RVI, I more often agree with the arguments against RVI's. Even if theory is an RVI, that would require offense to a counter-interpretation. I-Meets or Defense on the shell does not trigger an RVI.
 * __Theory: __**


 * __Critical arguments, K’s, off-cases: __** I like well-structured and interesting critical arguments and K’s. But, I have trouble voting for anything I don’t understand. Please slow down when you read these positions. Remember, you got to research this argument at a comfortable pace it is going by me for the first time live and I may not be able to comprehend your evidence at full speed. Explain how all off-case arguments function in the round.

While I don't evaluate cross-ex as part of the debating, I sometimes flow cx answers. I don't mind you asking additional questions of your opponent during your preparation time. I see no benefit to arguing in cx. Ask the questions; I will listen and will understand when someone is being evasive. Then, I expect you to use the responses from cx in your speeches. Too often I hear great questions asked and poor answers given, and then no one refers to the cx in their speeches.  Interesting and effective CX helps speaks.
 * __Cross-Ex __**


 * __Crystallize __** why you are winning the round, summing up the debate, addressing the most important arguments, and offering voting issues and help me see if your opponent has made a fatal error. Part of your last speech should be my RFD.


 * __Speaks: __**<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I think speaks on the whole are distributed arbitrarily so I will be cautious to adjust my average to that of the tournament at hand.

__**Important Things You Should Know:**__

1. I think that fairness and education are both important (obviously you can weigh internal links into them or between the two), meaning I care about debate being "good." 2. I will not vote for a strategy that deliberately attempts to "wash" the debate in order to trigger presumption. At worst I am compelled by risk of offense arguments if these "triggers" are made. 3. I will drop you if you run arguments that concludes that every action is permissible - s o, don't run skep 4. I will drop you if you create a hostile environment for anyone in the room. That includes the arguments you make. 5. I will drop you or at least your speaks if you deliberately format your case in a way that makes it harder for your opponent to read. Win by being the better debater, not the trickier debater!