Brokholder,+Michael 

I competed for one year in Lincoln-Douglas. However, I took debate class for four years in high school, and one year in middle school. I have judged for four tournaments, including the 2016 FFL State Championship Tournament. I have experience judging Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Student Congress.
 * __Experience__**
 * __Argumentation__**

The first speaker should define all relevant terms in the resolution before they begin presenting their contentions. If they do not do this, the second speaker must define terms according to their own definitions. If terms are not defined by either side, the interpretation of the resolution will be at my own discretion. The purpose of debate is //not// to argue constitutionality. For example, if the resolution being debated is, “Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned,” I am not interested in hearing about the 2nd Amendment, or about any court interpretations. These have no relevance to whether or not handguns ought to be banned, and is a cop-out to actually debating the topic at hand. Any arguments related to constitutionality will be ignored entirely. Kritiks generally carry little to no weight. I would much rather see refutation of arguments, as opposed to refutation of an entire school of thought. This is not to say that an opponent’s value or value criterion shouldn’t be refuted; doing this is actually encouraged. The outright rejection of a value system is not welcome, and will not get debaters far in the round. All contentions must be linked back to the value and value criterion the debater has chosen for the round. If they do not link back to their value and criterion, the debater will not have properly shown the logical conclusion to accept their contention as upholding their value, and thus, their contention will hold no weight. I am not interested in watching a “Webster war” unfold. If the two sides cannot agree upon the definitions in the resolution, I will decide which definition is most suitable for the round, but I will not tell the debaters whose definition is correct during the round. The longer the debaters argue the definitions, unless one is definitely right while the other is definitely wrong, both sides will continue to lose speaker points. Evidence is actually vital to the debate. The more recent the evidence, the better, in almost all cases. Making claims without evidence will not help a debater’s case. If ever evidence is unable to be produced to show to an opponent, the evidence will be counted for as if it was falsified, and will therefore negate the entirety of the argument. Statistics are actually important to backing up a philosophical argument, because without the statistics, the philosophy most likely cannot be accepted as being legitimate. Evidence should //not// come from cards. Using cards as your evidence tells me that either your coach wrote your speech for you, or you are using arguments directly from a brief, neither of which is acceptable for an academic tournament. At the end of each debater’s last rebuttal, the debater should present voting issues. These should be rather clear-cut and logically show why they should have won the round. If they do not present voting issues, it will be entirely up to my discretion as to whether arguments stand as being valid, or are rejected. Either way, it is my decision, but reminding me of key issues and having the debaters assign weight to their arguments is helpful in me making my decision.

**__Presentation__** The overall delivery of the speeches is not nearly as important as the arguments and logic involved in constructing a case. A perfect delivery can still lose to a mediocre one, should the mediocre one have an overall better case. I am okay with debaters presenting their speech quickly, as long as it is a reasonable speed. It is up to them to determine how fast they want to go. However, if they are spreading too fast, I will signal to them that it’s too fast be dropping my pen in a noticeable fashion. If they continue to spread even after I’ve dropped my pen, it is not my responsibility to flow their speech. Anything they say that I may miss will not be admissible to my overall decision. I will do the best I can to catch everything they say, but again, it is no longer my responsibility at that point. Debaters should signpost. If they do not do so, and I end up missing one of their points, it is then their responsibility. If anything slips by me due to a debater not signposting, it will not be counted as part of their case. I will do my best to catch everything I can, but it’s ultimately the debater’s responsibility to make sure their case is understood and clear to me. I am okay with the use of a roadmap, but it must be quick and debaters will not be allowed to present any parts of their argument during this untimed roadmap. If they decide to sneak in part of their argument in their roadmap, I will begin timing the speech at that point. Proper etiquette is expected, but is not necessary to win the round. As long as the debaters are behaving rationally and not ridiculously, then they should be fine. Personal attacks will result in a loss of speaker points, and could potentially be the deciding factor in the round. Extreme violations will result in an automatic loss. How a debater dresses is irrelevant to my decision. I wouldn’t care if they were wearing shorts and a t-shirt. As long as their case is stronger than their opponent’s case, and they don’t violate any rules, they will get the nod at the end of the round. Humor is welcome, but will have no impact on the round, as long as the debater includes actual argumentation. If the debater does not take the round seriously, I will not take the debater seriously, and the debater will almost certainly lose said round. During cross-examination, debaters must face straightforward and not look at their opponents. I understand that debaters will naturally want to turn their head at least a little while asking or answering questions, and I will therefore be reasonable with this rule. If they aren’t adhering to this rule, I will inform them to not face one another, and if they continue to break this rule, they will lose speaker points at my discretion. Time limits are somewhat flexible. Debaters will be allowed to go over the time limit by as much as 30 seconds, as long as they are wrapping up their speech during this time extension. If they go over that limit, they will not be allowed to win the round. Regarding cross-examination, if time expires in the middle of a question being asked or answered, I will allow that question and/or answer to be finished. If the debater answering the question after time expires goes off on a tangent, I will cut them off, subject to my own discretion. Prep time, however, is strict, and I will not allow debaters to stall without using prep time. Should they excessively attempt to do so, they will not be allowed to win the round. Appeals to cater to “mommy judges” will score a debater no points from me. Don’t treat me like an idiot that will accept your case just because it sounds nicer. Doing so may actually lose debaters speaker points. Similarly, ridiculous comparisons that liken an opposing debater’s case to the philosophy of someone like Adolf Hitler will also score debaters no points, and may cause a loss of speaker points.

**__Miscella__****__neous__** I will not disclose the results of the round to the debaters, even if they ask about it. I will not give them any commentary or critiques, other than what is on the judging sheet. All relevant information that any debater needs to know will be written on the judging sheet, and debaters should consult that if they wish to know why I voted the way I did. After my decision has been made, it will be treated as final, and any debater who appeals to me personally will not win that appeal. I will allow debaters to use their phones to time themselves, however, all electronic devices must be on airplane mode. If they are caught receiving any texts or using their devices to research during the round, they will automatically lose the round.