Siegel,+Monty

I have judged high school forensics for eight (8) years. Mostly in the PF and LD forum and in the current age, I'm considered a traditional flow judge. Speaking rates of all speeds are perfectly acceptable to me, but I need to be able to understand you. If you choose to motor-mouth through your speeches, I can keep up as long as you are articulate and enunciate. However, if you can deliver a compelling case smoothly and at a somewhat conversational tone, I will likely reward you with additional speaker points.

Both sides have an equal burden as far as I am concerned. A trivial example by the negative that contradicts the resolution is probably not enough to prove the resolution false. Similarly, if the affirmative offers a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of empirical evidence or specific examples that support the resolution, the negative certainly has an easier path to victory.

Winning the value/criteria debate is a nice bonus but not an automatic win. In fact, the opposing debater can choose to accept the other’s value and corresponding criteria and win if he/she is more persuasive in debating the opponent’s criteria.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence and clarity during the round.