Eglow,+Ross

Debated for Millburn High for 4 years, been judging for the past 2-3 years

I'll start with things that irk me - When you extend something you do not need to repeat the argument. I have it flowed so I don't need to hear aff repeat their claim/impact every speech. - I do not like saying clear, I do not consider myself part of the round until the end so if you are not clear I will try my best to flow but I think it is on you to evaluate whether or not you are understandable. I can flow pretty fast but I cant read your mind if you are blurbering all over the place. - If you are going to run theory I consider you bringing me into the round to evaluate your claim. Regardless of how well you think you posited your impact you are asking me to evaluate the abusiveness/topicality etc. and that might mean I just straight up don't agree with you. - Don't be blatantly mean in CX it really annoys me when you try and bully your opponent. - Not having a timer, for the love of god be responsible and time yourself.

Please extend correctly, extend the whole argument (claim, warrant, impact). So many rounds can be settled by just extending properly so do so. If you place a burden on your opponent you need to defend it if necessary and also extend it. Also try and order your extensions logically, I just rather go down the flow and follow your case top down unless you have a stylistic reason for doing otherwise. If you extend an unwarranted claim/impact you risk me not voting off it. Likewise if you extend a claim/warrant and don't impact you also risk me not voting off it. Additionally if you extend a claim/warrant/impact with no clear link you risk me not voting off it. I tend to give speaks in the average of 27-28. Rarely do I give 30's unless I think it important to your breaking because I can tell you are truly a fabulous debater. I tend to give speaks holistically and not dock for individual things so if you do something abusive even once it may affect my opinion of you for the round and thus alter your speaks. Be respectful, confident, and clear. There //is// a difference between confident and abrasive. If you cut your cards and you are called out on it I reserve the right to dismiss the warrant. If you are really abusing the wording of your warrants it will not only affect your speaks for sure but also whether or not I feel like picking you up. If you think your opponent is doing this call them out and show how abusive they are being, it's definitely not a waste of your speech time. I might flow them just because they came out of your mouth but I do not consider them. You should point them out because it'll make you look good and I like it when people are called out on genuine abuse but I will almost always know and will //always// ignore them. If you have voters that is how I vote. If you try and make unsubstantiated voters I will probably not vote on them unless I absolutely have no other choice. So please extend properly so I can vote properly. I hate being stuck in the end of the round with a list of voters that are more or less worthless.
 * Extensions**
 * Speaks**
 * Evidence**
 * New in the 2**
 * Voters**

I'll end with things that please me - I really like when you are methodical and calculating in handling the flow. It really shows when you are organized and competent in navigating and responding to the flow. - I just want to see good argumentation really, if you end up arguing about a technicality for the whole round, that is //totally// fine, I don't really care what the resolution is I am here to pick who is a better debater within the context of the round, the resolution is just an aspect. Get creative. That doesn't mean run crazy kritiks or theory up the a**, it means that I appreciate a good debate when I see one and you shouldn't feel constrained by just arguing about the specifics of the resolution. The logical construction of a case is a thing within itself that I appreciate and I consider it an art form when a technically brilliant case delivers. - I love a good link. Link things. Link them all the time. Link whichever which way you must just make 'em good. - I really like logical/philosophical arguments over empiricism. I wont devalue solid evidence but I like when the debate is 'up a level' - I like confidence and manner, always think you are going to win but don't be abrasive.

Lastly when I'm judging I'm there all day and sometimes need to sit through //a lot// of rounds so be clever, be intelligent, creative, novel, interesting, and whatever else you can think of that'll spice my day up. I may just pick you up on a random extension just because I really enjoyed what you had to say.