Jenkins-White,+Francis

I've been judging JV a lot recently, so if you're a varsity debater and some of this sounds like it doesn't apply to you, it very well might not... But here's what it boils down to for my judging philosophy: As long as you make it clear to me what your arguments are saying, I'll flow them, but I don't want to hear lots of jargon and I don't want you to assume I know what you're talking about, because unless you explain it to me, I probably don't. At the end of the round, please crystalize. After all of your speeches, it should be clear which arguments you've won and which you've lost. If you've won an argument, it should be easy to tell me WHY that means that you win, shouldn't it? So do that, don't just badger each other over justice vs. morality. C/X should be strategic, not just confused bumbling about which value is which. Use your questions to illustrate points to me. (There's a reason you look at a judge in c/x, after all, rather than your opponent). I give speaks mostly based on clarity (clarity of speaking, clarity of argumentation, etc.) and also if you can keep me engaged and interested in your arguments/position.