Hughes,+Sam

Public Forum: I evaluate the winner of the debate entirely based on which arguments won the debate. At the end of the round, I look at all of the issues that have been identified to me as important (either explicitly by debaters, or implicitly). I evaluate who won each argument, as well as if the argument was refuted, mitigated, or turned. If one team gives me a reasonable weighing mechanism, and the other team does not respond to it, or does not provide me with an alternative weighing mechanism, I will use the weighing mechanism provided to me to evaluate the remaining arguments. The poise, articulation, gestures, and other factors influencing the artistic and/or rhetorical quality of a speech do not factor into which team wins the debate.

Conversely, I evaluate speaker points entirely on these "speech factors" (public speaking, volume, articulation, organization, etc.) and not on which arguments were ultimately left standing and relevant at the end of the debate.

If a team fails to address a given contention (either their own or an opponents') in a speech due to lack of time (meaning they had very little time left at the end of their speech) I do not consider those arguments to be auto-dropped, but a considerable amount of time needs to be spent convincing me that they are important if you bring them up in the next speech. Likewise please tell me when your opponent failed to address an argument.

Crossfires should be civil. Debaters should strive to strike a balance between being assertive and being polite. Questions should be short enough to not take up too much time, but long enough to get across the idea you are asking about clearly.

Please signpost. If you don't signpost, I will try my best to follow along, but will likely end up missing where at least one of your arguments goes on the flow.

Please speak at a conversational rate, or slightly faster than a conversational rate in public forum. Please do not spread.

Lincoln-Douglas: In order to determine the winner of an LD debate, first, I select which value I prefer, based on the reasons provided to me by the debaters. Next, I check to see which criterion best links to the preferred value. Then, I look at all of the contentions that have been identified to me as important (either explicitly by debaters, or implicitly). I evaluate who won each argument, as well as if the argument was refuted, mitigated, or turned. Of the remaining contentions, I compare which side's contentions best link to the preferred criterion for the preferred value, and cast my ballot based on that. The poise, articulation, gestures, and other factors influencing the artistic and/or rhetorical quality of a speech do not factor into which team wins the debate.

Conversely, I evaluate speaker points entirely on these "speech factors" (public speaking, volume, articulation, organization, etc.) and not on which arguments were ultimately left standing and relevant at the end of the debate.

Cross-examination should be civil. Examiners should be assertive without being rude. Examinees should not stall for time by rambling. Questions should be short enough to not take up too much time, but long enough to get across the idea you are asking about clearly.

Please signpost. If you don't signpost, I will try my best to follow along, but will likely end up missing where at least one of your arguments goes on the flow.

I am comfortable listening to theory, Kritiks, and spreading (but start to lose comprehension around 325 wpm) in Lincoln-Douglas.