Cumming,+Jay

I debated for Monticello for 3 years (2008-2011), competing at national tournaments my senior year.

I will evaluate the round as objectively as possible, it is your job as a debater to help me arrive at a decision calculus showing why you win. This calculus can vary from being moral means we affirm, to "I am a pirate and your ballot is my booty". If you win a framework and offense to that framework I will evaluate it and possibly vote off it.

Though I'm open to pretty much anything there are a few things to know if I'm judging you.

Jan/Feb 2012: If both debaters agree to debate a different topic before the round I'm totally fine with that as long as you tell me which topic you're using (targeted killing, sanctions, animals, pirates vs ninjas, whatever else you fancy)

I couldn't care less:

1: If you sit or stand. 2: If you are traditional or progressive. 3: Who you look at in CX (lol) 4: If you ask questions during prep. 5: How you structure cases or shells. 6: If you treat theory as competing interpretations or reasonability. 7: If you can win the round with one or two clear voting issues quickly, I won't require you to use all of your speech time if a 45 second extension and explanation is more than sufficient. However, do not in any way, execute this in a rude fashion in an effort to show up your opponent. 8: If you want to ask questions about the decision after the round. Ask as many questions as you need to in order to understand how I went about making my decision, but understand that I won't sit there waiting while you try to change my mind about an argument after the round.

Things I do care about:

1: Speed is fine but if you sound like a chipmunk we will have problems. I will say clear however many times I need to and although I won't dock speaks, I won't know about that sweet little spike you can't wait to extend. If I don't have at least some portion of the argument down I likely won't evaluate it.

2: If you read evidence, have it available for your opponent if they call for it. This could mean jump driving it over or handing them pages, but not showing what you read to your opponent will result in very sad face speaks.

3: It used to be that I would just ignore evidence that was miscut or academically dishonest. If there appears to be intentional doctoring of evidence or other dishonest practices I will be inclined to vote you down with low low speaker points.

4: Don't be an ass, if you are crushing an opponent don't do anything to ridicule or mock them or their arguments.

5: When reading author names pump the breaks and tell me who wrote whatever you are about to read. READ AUTHOR NAMES CLEARLY.

6: I will vote on RVI's as long as they are developed. Win offense on theory and tell me why the theory was abusive, not just "It wasn't me, vote him down".

7: I have no idea what to do with a framework or theory turn if you don't give some sort of implication as to what I'm doing with it.

8: If you want to do flex prep check if your opponent is cool with it before the round. Don't just assume it's cool and do flex when your opponent didn't use flex.

9: If you are running a theory or topicality shell and the violation is contingent on a cross-ex concession be clear that they are saying what you're accusing them of.'

10: Don't say morality comes before justice, and vice versa. I will be very sad face. Your speaks will make you cry onion tears. Don't do it.

11: Do not talk to me during your speech. By this I mean, don't ask me if you extended an argument or if your opponent dropped something. Don't ask me if you should stop your speech in the middle of speaking. I will continue staring at my flow as if you said nothing.

You will likely get 28 speaker points or higher unless you are sketchy, rude, or have me counting your favorite filler word on the edge of my flow.

Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Keep the Jeep Riding