Monguya,+Clotilde

I have been judging for quite a year in local and national tournaments Lakeland, Pennsbury, Wake forest.

I value traditional debate and attempt to do the least intervention and do not bring my personal opinion into the round. I am comfortable with speed but it should not impede clarity. I value performance and less jargon. I value respect toward your opponents. I want you to be passionate, funny and have a sense of humor even though it is a persuasive delivery speech.

For the affirmative, I enjoy judging a great policy debate with didactic layered stock issues. As well, I like the affirmative to be topical. A framed impact calculus in the 2AR will give me a reason to favor for you. It is one of my round-winner.

Disads/CP : A strategic well framed CP with links can lead to a great exchange debate. I am open to any argument if well researched and analyzed.

Merely reading cards is at your disadvantage. At the end of your reading, this high skill of articulation must be extended with clear scholastic explanations for your audience.

I prefer open CX and team effort.

Each speaker has the right to debate at his/her turn. Prompting is acceptable with me but monopolization of someone else time is inacceptable.

Absolutely no new arguments in the rebuttals

I will call cards if needed at the end of the round so highlight them.

I have limited experience with kritik, ASPEC, OSPEC and others because unfamiliar with the concept and strategy. With your ability to explain (to me) whatever strategy you run I am ready to vote for your K. Make sure your analysis and understanding is clearly delivered with consistent extensions.

Type in the content of your page here.