Collins,+Lisa

 =Collins, Lisa =

Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy, La Canada, CA
This is my second year as a judge but I have judged extensively in those two years at Berkeley, VBT, Stanford, Damien, Cal State Fullerton and Long Beach. I have judged and watched more rounds than I count on the recent Jan/Feb topic, starting with varsity rounds at College Prep Tournament.


 * Presentation:** I appreciate that you acknowledge my presence in the room by occasionally looking up from your notes. It will help you to know how I am receiving your case. I also appreciate a certain amount of respect between opponents. I believe arguments can be made with dignity intact.


 * Speed:** With regards to speed keep in mind that if I can't understand you, I won't flow it, and I can't vote on it. It's that simple. You may choose speed, but know it comes with a price! That being said, faster than conversational style, is okay. You can try speed-- I will yell "clear" if I can't understand you. PLEASE slow down when "clear" is called.


 * Theory:** I have heard theory arguments but my feelings around it's use are ambivalent. Again, if you can tell my WHY your opponent's case was abusive and you __had__ to run theory, then I am intelligent enough to vote on it. But don't use theory just because you think it makes you look smart! If that's why you are using it, you probably don't need to use it.

The following I borrow from Jon Cruz, judge for Bronx Science School. Why re-invent the wheel? He said it well!


 * Likes**

1. Humility 2. Politeness 3. Intelligence 4. Clarity (both in speaking and in presentation/organization of arguments) 5. Weighing arguments 6. Providing a clear decision-making calculus for the judge, including road maps. 7. Slow and effective negative spreads 8. Slow 1ARs that cover fast NC/1NRs 9. Smart analytic responses to absurd evidence 10. Voting issues (especially when at the end of the final rebuttal) 11. Cross-examination (especially when one uses it to extract concessions, not just clarify arguments) 12. Smart, topical, specific application of philosophy 13. Being funny in the round/not being a debate robot 14. Disclosing arguments 15. Not making the judge think


 * Dislikes**

1. Arrogance 2. Rudeness (even worse when you //are// the better debater) 3. Obfuscation 4. Vulgarity 5. Blippy, hidden arguments in cases that are then exploded into massive issues in the rebuttals 6. Lack of organization in the constructive or rebuttals 7. __Coming to the round unprepared (especially when you are in the B flight)__ 8. New arguments in the 2NR/2AR 9. Labeling arguments as turns when they aren't turns 10. Not looking at the judge to see how he's reacting 11. Failure to provide voting issues or clear crystallization 12. Mis-cutting evidence 13. Evasiveness in cross-examination 14. Extending every argument into the final rebuttal because of a failure to strategically select issue 15. Making the judge think.