Wu,+Dianna


 * Background:**
 * Three years in Varsity LD back in high school.
 * Also dabbled in Public Forum, as well as multiple speech events.
 * Neither was entirely satisfying, but both nostalgic; parliamentary is fun now that I'm in college.
 * I assume I'm judging LD. I won't ever be judging policy. If I judge Public Forum, ignore everything specific to LD written below and treat me like I'm your average, relatively uninformed American. (Was that redundant?)


 * Voting Issues:**
 * Give them to me. Tell me why you win. If you don't tell me why you win, I can't weigh things the way you want, which will probably end up making life worse for you.


 * Speaking Style:**
 * Eye contact is preferable and necessary for high speaks, though not needed to win.
 * Speaking too fast will result in lower speaks, although judge is usually capable of following. Only speak fast if everything you have to say is crucial; otherwise it looks like you're just trying-- and failing-- to impress.
 * Would rather see debaters reasoning through their cases rather than reciting them verbatim.


 * Cards:**
 * Will never win you a round unless justified (no stating that your opponent failed to refute your 'Aghion' card, and thus you //clearly// are the master of the universe).
 * And in justifying your card, don't simply state that it must be true due to the expertise of the person whose opinion you're citing. It's still an opinion. Show me the logic. Impact things.


 * Kritiks:**
 * Are not preferred. If you've got an absolutely brilliant reason why the motion is flawed, go ahead and try, but as we are not discussing policy, there is no need to delve so deeply into the language and word choice in the motion.


 * Spreading:**
 * Is acceptable when all the points being provided are illuminating and strong. No dividing a contention into ten subpoints if all of the subpoints are repetitive, however.
 * Additionally, if your opponent has given you a ridiculous spread and you find yourself hard-pressed to attack everything, hit the main points; there won't be too much deduction if you didn't hit each of the five subpoints of the six contentions your opponent has brought.


 * Time:**
 * Three minutes down-time given total.
 * Not using down-time is impressive if you're truly ready to debate right off, but less impressive if you end up fumbling through and dropping arguments. Use it wisely; no penalizing happens for using what's offered to you.


 * Value/Criterion:**
 * If the values are more or less the same, //please// don't go into 'my value supercedes my opponent's' or 'my value encompasses my opponent's.' If they're similar, then both of you are trying to get to roughly the same point. I don't care who has the superior value if they don't end up catering most to it with their speech.
 * If you have time, explain how everything links back and can be weighed by the criterion.


 * Etiquette:**
 * //Be polite//. Mocking of the opponent is not appreciated. If a point is silly, don't rub that fact into your opponent's face-- that's just bad form.
 * Don't look at your opponent during cross-examination.
 * Don't steamroll your opponent or badger them during cross-examination.
 * Shaking my hand after the round won't get you any bonus points. Nor will I be swayed by intriguing chit-chat before a round, although it does help to pass the time, which is a plus.
 * Don't lie. (Duh.)


 * Nuke Hat:**
 * Anyone daring enough to use this plan seriously in their case gets major brownie points.