Stark,+Ian

=Philosophy Statement=

I am a heavily tab-influenced **Game Theorist**. By default, I believe that debate is inherently a game with each team's objective being to win using whatever resources they have available. These resources can and often do run the gamut of all traditional and progressive debating styles, even including rejecting the, "game," in favor of another debate model. Thus, I go into the room with the presumption that any argument has the potential to be valid and round-winning until proven otherwise, and I encourage the debaters to tell me both //how// I should judge the round and //why//.

=Detailed Assessment=

In the absence of any direction from the debaters, I will judge according to these guidelines:


 * **Resolution of substantive issues** is more important than communication skills.
 * **Quality of evidence** is more important than quantity of evidence.
 * **Quality of arguments** is more important than quantity of arguments.
 * **Dropped arguments** are true.
 * **Conditional arguments** are acceptable.
 * **Reverse voting issues** are legitimate.
 * **Existential inherency** is legitimate.
 * __**Anything goes.**__

I do want to stress that I will drop any and all of the above if you argue that I should - then it becomes up to the two teams to figure out how the round will be judged.

=Delivery Preferences=


 * Speed kills** - and I'm saying that for your benefit, not mine. I am more than capable of following rapid delivery, but I often find that its usage severely diminishes the quality of the argumentation in the round. I encourage you to speak as fast as you comfortably can without sounding blippy and while still remaining easily comprehensible to everyone around you. That said, although debate is an event originally founded on communicative principles, I will not penalize you unless you are directly obfuscating that process in some way.

In the event that you manage to exceed my speed limit, I will say, "Clear." If the issue arises again, I will stop flowing your speech until I can understand what you are saying.

=Speaker Points=

I award speaker points from 20-30 with the ten point interval in-between corresponding to an academic grading scale of 100%. I consider the factors of **argumentation, refutation, structure, and presentation** in awarding points, and I do award half-points when appropriate.


 * = 30 ||= 100% ||= S ||
 * = 29 ||= 90% ||= A ||
 * = 28 ||= 80% ||= B ||
 * = 27 ||= 70% ||= C ||
 * = 26 ||= 60% ||= D ||
 * = 25 ||= 50% ||= F ||

If you manage to score below 26 (60%), you have done something grievously wrong, and I will speak to you after the round is over.