Samaroo,+Stephen

I've debated for four years at Cypress Ridge High School in the events Student Congress, Foreign Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, and Impromptu speaking.

I have had some prior experience judging Cross Examination and Lincoln-Douglas Debate, due to being learned in both events, however having no competion under my belt in Cross Examination, and very little in Lincoln-Douglas.
 * //__Cross Examination__//**:
 * Speed**: I don't care. Go as fast as you want. I'll ask for a "clear" if you start to jumble your words. I have never had trouble with speed in a round.
 * Kritiks**: Run em' if you got em'. I only ask that you are very clear in what you're trying to prove. If I don't understand the K, then I can't really vote for it.
 * Counterplans**: Just like any off-case, use em' if you want.
 * Dis-ads**: Pretty obvious that you'll use these, and I'm fine with that.

I approve of more policy debate than I do stock issues, yet you can't drop stock issues for just policy debate. You have to have a good balance between the two if you want a good case. That said, I will note stock issues, but will more vote on policy disscussion.
 * Policy vs. Stock**

I can, and will buy personal analytical arguments, however, only if you warrant them well. If they are without warrant and the opponent calls you out on this, it's basically defeated.
 * Analytics**:

__//**Lincoln Douglas Debate**//__
 * Impact Calc**: You have to tell me what to vote for. If you don't, I don't know what you want to apply, and thus, my decision may be based on judge intervention, or a direct read of the flow. If you know you lost more arguments, you have to tell me why your lost arguments don't matter, or are outweighed by what your impacts. If you don't, I vote on quantity of arguments won, over quality.
 * Speed**: As fast as you want.
 * Off-case arguments**: Go for it.
 * Definition Debate**: A-okay.
 * Kritiks**: Absolutely fine.

Almost nothing is abusive in my eyes, unless the K proves it's abusive, or unless it exploits time in the round. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

I prefer Value and Standard debate over all else, however, in light of similar values or standards, I would like to see the affirmative and negative at the very least, clash at whoever has the better weighing mechanism.


 * Impact Calc**: You have to tell me what to vote for. If you don't, I don't know what you want to apply, and thus, my decision may be based on judge intervention, or a direct read of the flow. If you know you lost more arguments, you have to tell me why your lost arguments don't matter, or are outweighed by what your impacts. If you don't, I vote on quantity of arguments won, over quality.

__**//Student Congress//**__
 * Sources**: Not required at all. As a matter of a fact, too many sources may doom your speech. If sources are supplied, I don't want to hear simply what the source says, I want your analytical argument on what the source actually means. If I catch a made up source, you will receive a "1" on a TFA ballot.
 * Extemporaneous speeches**: If a speech is given with little preparation, or none at all, and is actually done well, I will take this into consideration. Bonus points if the speaker spoke to move the round forward. If the speech however, was not even attempted, but rather a Congressional Game to move the round forward, I can't really rank you high.
 * Rehash**: If I hear rehash without you actually making yourself different from the previous speaker, the best you can get is a "2" on TFA ballots. If you talk about points that have already been brought up, you must either elaborate, or extend, or improve upon that point.
 * Reading**: Reading off your speech straight from the paper, is immediate grounds for a "3" on TFA ballots. If you do rehash, you have to actually elaborate.