Wolfish,+David

Affiliations: Greenhill School (c/o2005) Addison, Texas and the University of Pennsylvania (c/o 2009)

Although everything below still holds true, my paradigm was written in 2006. I have judged sparsely since then, and I am not likely to be familiar with the jargon of the resolution. I would recommend slowing down some and making your points extremely clear. I tend to be expressive during the round, so maintain eye contact and it should be clear how receptive I am to your style and content of argumentation. Good luck!

JARGON: I know all the technical jargon, so feel free to use it when appropriate. However, I do not judge consistently on every resolution so do not expect me to know topic-specific jargon.

STANDARDS: I will evaluate arguments which are explicitly linked to the criterion/standard. Ideally, you would both agree to one, but I realize this is often not the case. Make sure your criterion is specific and well-warranted. I am pretty line-by-line when evaluating arguments. If you tell me something is a priori JUSTIFY why this is true. I will evaluate it above other arguments if I believe the justification is well-articulated. However, an argument that links to a typical criterion (e.g. protection of life) should not be called a priori.

SPEED: Go as fast as you want as long as you aren’t sacrificing clarity. Slow down on important or dense arguments. Speed/spreading is appropriate when you are using it to give more substance to fewer arguments as opposed to less substance for a vast majority of arguments. If you choose the latter option, especially against a novice, your speaker points will be significantly reduced.

PRESENTATION: Don’t be arrogant or annoying. I prefer if you stand for speeches.

WEIGHING: If you want to make me happy, weigh in the rebuttals and even in the constructives if you are ambitious. I believe weighing is a lost art and can win you a lot of close rounds.

EVIDENCE: I have very high standards for evidence. Use the following guidelines: -Read the source AND qualification of the author when presenting the evidence -Make sure the evidence has internal warrants -If called into question, I expect the debater to have the full card (read: no ellipses OR cutoff paragraphs) or the article/book -If I read the evidence and you have bracketed in words to link it to the topic or change the meaning of the evidence, I hold it in my jurisdiction to drop you -If I read the evidence and your interpretation is nowhere near what the evidence is saying, it will be held against you.

QUESTIONS: I encourage you to ask questions after the decision. Debaters put a lot of effort into preparing for tournaments, and I will put effort into my decision and help you understand it. I will generally disclose. If things didn’t go the way you wanted, keep calm and ask questions politely.

Ask me prior to the round if you have additional questions. Good luck!