Salai,+Sean

Blue Key National Tournament judge, 2011-2013 NFL Nationals Indianapolis June 2012 NCFL Nationals Baltimore May 2012 NCFL Nationals Philadelphia May 2013

For Policy or Team Debate, I'm just looking for the better-constructed case, preferably with some intelligent clash. I'm always impressed by a solid counter-plan on the NEG side, but for me it's really a matter of who brings forth the stronger cards and refutes the ads/disads of the opposition. Spreading is good, but it needs to be coherent for the flow.

For LD and PFD, It's just a matter of who makes the better case, staying within the proper framework of the event. One pet peeve in LD is students who use philosophers without understanding them fully or connecting them clearly to the value and value criterion. Since I have an MA in Applied Philosophy, I can't help noting when a student is using a philosopher incorrectly or poorly.

In IE, I favor naturalness over speed, looking for a depth of confidence and connection between speaker and audience. There needs to be a depth of emotion and sensitivity rather than a rote mastery of facts or technique.

When judging congress, I am primarily looking for four things: 1. Substance, 2. Length, 3. Confidence, 4. Persuasiveness. If a student seems natural and argues well, handling questions in the same manner, then I will give him or her a higher score. But the speech must also well-sourced (substantive) and at least 2 minutes long.