Messer,+Donald

Background: I am a former college president, and now judging for my granddaughter. I received my PhD in philosophy and ethics, so I am familiar with all types of philosophy. This doesn’t mean that you can just blaze through cards, you have to explain why this particular person would support whatever side of the case you are on.

I am a very traditional judge, and like to see voting issues clearly lined out. Tell me why I should be voting for you, and persuade me to do that. I am not familiar with Ks, CPs, plans or anything else like that. Keep it to a minimum, or make sure to explicitly explain to me what you are doing.

Delivery style- I still believe in this activity as a communication based activity. Not treating it as such will impact your speaker points. I would like you to stand, be respectful, and be intelligent. The only time your style will impact the actual decision is with speed.

SPEED -While I may be able to hear every word you say, I cannot usually process them. I do not yell clear. At some point you should look up to see if I am flowing. Slow down. I am a more traditional judge and if I cannot understand what you are saying I won’t be able to flow it or evaluate it in the round. Please use nothing more than a brisk conversational speed.

The goal is to engage in a dialogue with your opponent, and convince me that your position is the better one. Engage with their arguments, articulate your position clearly, and tell me which arguments are most important – and why you win those arguments.

Theory – I am not a fan of theory debates. They are not something that I am familiar with at all, and thus running theory is a terrible strategy in front of me. Due to my lack of experience with it, I can almost guarantee that there will have to be some sort of intervention in order to make a decision based off of it. I generally presume you need to win that there's enough abuse that it was almost impossible for you to debate as a result of their strategy.