Khan,+Shahin

=
I am a parent Judge with year+ experience with Policy debate in the Northern VA area. I have been judging in the WACFL and other tournaments. I was an impromptu debater during middle and high school years. I enjoy judging kids…..love their passion very impressed with depth of knowledge! =====

=
I prefer (and tell debater when they asked) clear road map, clear labeling, varied pace and clear conclusion after each phase. I feel debaters (mostly freshmen, sophomore…) focus too much on quantify of their argument instead of quality. They often forget that the judges may be biased in favor of well-mannered debaters against those who are not so nice at times. I firmly believe, debaters must take responsibility to point out clearly why they must win. s **ummarize ** and **emphasize ** every opportunity they get. They should not assume that the judges are following every details and keeping track of everything. Thirteen minutes is a long time! I avoid interrupting if no objections. I do not like to keep track of fractional minutes for prep time. I prefer closed corssX, however open crossX is OK if the debaters to not talk over each other. Yes, I want to do as little work as a judge as possible - and debaters should know that they have to earn a 'win'. =====

=

 * I **f you are pointing out ‘abuse’ you must be specific. ‘Standard’ argument….“We increase education….” Is not sufficient to win.  Tell us which arguments you can’t run, what education you are losing….Yes, I want actual evidence of abuse.  You must explain why topicality should be a voting issue. Not just list of words.  Argument like, “ It is unfair….”  - I don’t know what that means. Give me good, logical reasons why I should vote on Topicality. I would prefer Neg team to accept the broad definition of the topic and argue against it instead of relying on ‘Topicality’ argument.  In most cases I find this to be a long shot.  I urge debaters to avoid this tactics. If you argue ‘topicality’, do not solely rely on this!   =====