I do not have any argument selection preferences. You should make the arguments that you think are appropriate.

  • UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENTS COMPLETELY: You should not make any arguments that you do not completely understand. The key words are "you," "completely," and "understand." The meaning of these words should be self-evident. However, I have realized that not everyone defines the words the same way. "You" - The speaker. If the speaker makes the argument, then the speaker should understand the argument completely. "Completely understand" - Do not assume that I understand everything; do not assume that I am incompetent. Assume that I think logically, i.e., A -> B. You need to be able to connect the dots between your evidence; you need to know if the authors that you cite agree or disagree with each other.
  • KRITIKS: You should know (and be able to explain) at what level the kritik functions. Based on that knowledge, you must make FIAT related arguments if and when appropriate.
  • TOPICALITY (AND THEORY GENERALLY): You must make substantive arguments that are thick with warrants and provide a compelling reason to vote for you based on those arguments. A simple example should suffice. Almost every team makes an argument related to "education" at some point during a debate round. For example, responding to a topicality violation an affirmative team may argue that "a broad view of the topic promotes education." To be successful you need to be able to answer - during the round - two key questions: why is your claim true? why does it matter? And, particularly with these types of arguments, you must explain how your arguments should be evaluated (e.g., do you believe that topicality should be evaluated first?) and why.
  • SPEED: I am getting older and I am judging less frequently. I can still handle speed if the following conditions are met: (1) You are making substantive (i.e., analytically involved) arguments. Two sentence cards and one sentence analytics do not satisfy this standard; (2) You are clear; and, (3) You signpost and number your arguments and respond to your opponents' arguments by number, i.e., "responding to 2AC number 1."
  • OPEN CROSS-EXAMINATION: No problem. However, you should re-read "understand your arguments" because if you fail to demonstrate that you understand your arguments completely you are doing yourself a speaker-point related disservice.
  • IN-ROUND EVIDENCE HANDLING: There are two points here: (1) I have no problems with anyone standing over the speaker's shoulder or taking evidence when the speaker is done reading it; (2) make sure that you can account for the evidence that each speaker uses. If you use the evidence, then you should be able to access it and provide it to any other speaker who claims that he or she needs it. If you take the evidence, then you should be able to access it and provide it to any other speaker who claims that he or she needs it.

  • Impact analysis is a must.
  • I vote based on what I have on my flow.

  • Please ask. Listen to my response.