Diken,+Taylor

I judge LD and PF at all levels.

I did LD my freshman year and PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL), so my paradigms are a mix of both. Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can actually reason them through other than just giving a Rousseau quote and moving on. Otherwise, you need evidence to back up your claims. The key is quality, not quantity. If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three. By that token, I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. This is first and foremost a public speaking activity; if I cannot understand what you're saying, you cannot be successful in public speaking. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level spewing is not appreciated. Again, quality, not quantity. Eye contact and actual persuasion are absolutely critical to speaker points and winning the debate.

As for actual judging, I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.

Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off. Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you don't get one is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.