Riano,+Steve

I am an experienced lay judge. I have judged dozens of debate rounds at a variety of tournaments, and I know how to keep a good flow. However, I am still most susceptible to solid reasoning and rhetoric like most lay judges. My prefs are pretty simple: First and foremost, DO NOT TALK FAST. I will drop you if you spread, full stop. I appreciate a conversational speed and like to be persuaded by the quality of your arguments, not the quantity. I want to see debaters weigh their own arguments against what their opponents said. Don’t just extend arguments, tell me why it matters in the context of the round. Do everything you can to use all the material presented to strategically take down your opponent. I especially like turns and using your opponent’s logic against them. Don’t just talk about your own side; it’s not as persuasive.

I will not understand topicality, kritiks, or any other kind of theory argument __unless__ you explain them thoroughly. That being said, I have no problem evaluating them if you describe them well enough. On a side note, I don’t believe in //a priori// voting issues; everything in the round counts. I believe cross-examination is extremely valuable. Don’t waste everyone’s time by asking stupid questions. Come in with a strategy and use it. Don’t go over the time limit (at all) and don’t leave a bunch of time on the clock. It makes you look unprepared. Also, all of your roadmaps should be on-time. Lastly, I really like to hear voting issues at the end of your speech. Give me a clear list of why I should vote for you. Don’t make me do the work for you. I rarely give oral feedback