I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. In a debate round, I want to see strong links in the contention debate that ultimately support the value/criterion debate however, the contention debate is less important to me than the overall value/criterion debate.

FLOWING--If you think your case is good enough, you shouldn't need to spread or attempt to spread. Not only does this take away from the round, it begins to lose its educational value if you're just trying to put so much information out there that your opponent can't possibly talk about all of your points. I want you to tell me what I need to know to understand how your case wins. I will not flow if I can't understand what you are saying because you're attempting to bombard your opponent.

VALUE/CRITERIA--A value is something of moral worth that we should strive for and we can achieve it through the lens of your criterion. Your contentions should show me how we can make that happen within the boundaries of the resolution.

PRECONCEIVED PERSPECTIVES--I value my ability to consider every issue from both sides regardless of my personal views. I couldn't care less what side of any issue you're on so long as you can show me through the debate why you're right.

TIMING--The timer for prep time begins when you sit. It will stop once you stand up. I will do my best to give you thirty-second reminders doing prep time.

USE OF ELECTRONICS--In today's world it's hard to limit students on the use of their electronic devices. Students are expected to abide by all tournament rules regarding the use of electronic devices. If I see a debater attempting to use an electronic device for an inappropriate purpose such as communication during a round, I do not treat that violation lightly and it will be reported to tournament officials.

As with all school events, nothing is more important than the educational skills learned through programs like speech and debate. Please be cognizant that while it is fun to win, I do not consider use of unsportsmanlike maneuvers to be worthwhile to the educational purpose of speech and debate. I expect all students to treat each other with respect despite opposing viewpoints.

I am a former LD Debater, State Champion and National Competitor many moons ago.

I have coached and judged Public Forum and LD for the past 8 years. The last seven as Head Coach.

I am a flow judge. Speed is fine but know if it doesn’t hit my flow it didn’t happen. I will be pretty clear in my face and writing if you are losing me.

Overview: I will not do the work for you.

I require extending arguments and vetting sources. IE remember the XX card (I won’t) with out a paraphrase and impact is meaningless and a throw away.

Signpost. If you must jump around the flow, lead me there. I require more than cross apply the arguments. Why?

Narrative: This is an absolute requirement for me. Why do I prefer your offering on the resolution? I do not vote on net zero arguments. IE my evidence is better, more recent, yada yada without context. Making an argument neutral is not winning an argument. Basically, impact the TURN. I am not a technicality judge as I do not feel that is in the true spirit of Debate.

Public Forum:

I do not believe there is a paradigm in this area of debate. I expect logical links and impacts. I am open to where a debater will take the argument. That said, public forum is not Policy light. Use solvency, plans, counter plans, K’s and DisAds at your own risk. There is a reason Policy rounds are 90 minutes and PF only 45. If you can solve for poverty in 4 minutes from a few sentences of some evidence, I will personally take you to the U.N.

I do embrace/expect scope and link chains as it is logical and necessary to weigh any debate.

LD:

I will look to Framework. If you can not access impacts in the V/C clash I cannot vote for you. End of story. You cannot win an LD round with out winning the V/C clash. It is the bedrock of why we are even talking about the subject in LD and not PF or Policy. You have a unique obligation of ought or should while upholding a link to the real world.

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

I was a three year policy debater from South Dakota. I tend to be a policy maker judge, but I will try and vote however I am told to during the round. Some speed is fine, but make sure that you are clear with tags and you may have to slow down if you are explaining complex arguments or theories to me. Please don't be rude towards the other debaters or your partner - debate should be a place where everyone feels welcome.

Policy

I'm cool with any type of arguments being ran, but I prefer DA/CP/case debate versus critical or topicality (unless if they are actually untopical). Open CX is fine, but don't use up all of your partner's time. Make sure to have warranted extensions of your arguments and I appreciate if the debate can be boiled down to why you should win. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

LD

I am pretty new to LD, but I will do my best to judge any round. To be honest, you will need to spend a little time explaining what some of the arguments are, as I'm not up to date with a lot of the buzzwords used. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

PF

While I never competed in PF, I have been primarily judging it for the past two years. As for argumentation, y'all can run whatever you'd like, I do not mind. Don't steal prep or go over time with your speech - once you run out of time I stop flowing. Do your best to be fast with your evidence, it can get pretty obnoxious waiting. It's your opponent's right to ask for evidence, and it's on you to provide it without holding up the debate.

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our What'sTheirName Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

Policy Paradigm

Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.

Any questions, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am most familiar with a traditional LD case structure (value, criterion, contentions), but if you want to go a different route, I'll listen. I'll vote on any argument that is well-warranted and impacted out.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out, rock on ballers!

DISCLAIMER: EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT - THE ROUND IS YOURS, I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT EXPLAINED WELL ENOUGH!!! I also encourage questions before the rounds if there are any specific questions that need clarification.

tl;dr - know the ins and outs of the arguments you run. Good debate mechanics coupled with execution and decision making will get my ballot constantly.

That being said...here's how to pander to me

Affiliation: Sioux Falls Lincoln
Experience: I debated for 4 years during high school in and out of my home state of South Dakota. My first two years of debate were strictly policy oriented; however, during my junior and senior year I ran a lot of kritiks (some better than others and with varying levels of proficiency) so I'm fine with voting on anything from T to performance affs.

Generic philosophy:
My judging philosophy is that each round is a game. As a game, there are implicit and explicit win conditions that must be met to receive the ballot. That means that arguments must stand up by themselves to a certain threshold if they hope to win. For that reason, framing is what I put the most weight upon.
I love seeing well put together game strategies tailored to pick apart opponents but well researched generics are fine too. For affirmatives, a well thought out advantage with strong internal link scenarios is much better than five one card scenarios. The same applies to the neg, a single great DA > 20 spec arguments. I very much love to see thought put into arguments and strategy and doing so will reward you in front of me.

Win conditions/Burdens: These are the standard(ish) ways that debates are won and I use them as a guideline to determine the round. They are all subject to change should I be told otherwise.

Policy round: Impact calc (Magnitude, timeframe, probability, or who accesses them best)
Policy round w/ ethics impacts: Util > Deontology or vice versa (impact framing)
Policy round w/ counterplan: Neg must prove superior solvency with a net benefit that o/w any potential solvency deficit
Policy round with kritik: Will vary from K to K. Usually will center around a single framing issue in an overview (ontology, epistemology, etc)

performance round: It'll really come down to what is happening in round.

Speaks:
30: Best speaker I've seen all tournament - You are so good that I expect to see you in outrounds and/or winning the tournament.
29: Best speaker in the round - You were clear and provided all the warrants I could ever need.
28: Good speaker - I usually start each debater at around this many points and move up or down accordingly. If you get a 28 at the end of the round, it was because you were a good speaker with a strong grasp on fundamentals.
27: An okay speaker - A couple things may have gone wrong somewhere along the line but you were able to recover. 27's usually mean that you are becoming unclear or at time are very hard to understand.
26 and below: I DO NOT like giving out low speaks and I usually reserve this for speakers that were either offensive or impossible to understand. If you get a 26, something went very wrong.

Specific Issues -

Speed: If you happen to be a debate robot and can put out obscene amounts of evidence in a short span of time remember that some of us are only human. Don't be afraid to slow down, especially on tags, because clarity will get you farther than speed. I never want to have to call a card unless the wording is being highly disputed so If you zoom through all your warrants don't expect me to get them all the first time around. This is still a communicative activity and if you aren't communicating your information to me then don't be upset if you get voted down because I can't understand what is happening.

Theory: I'm fairly open to either side of this debate simply because It was never an issue I felt strong or attached to. Perms might be good, bad, ugly or a consult counterplan might be the devil. I don't know. Those calls are up to the people in the round. I will say that I was irked by multiple conditional counterplans but even then I won't insta-drop you for it. If a theory hail mary is what it takes for you to win the round, feel free.

Topicality: Very much like theory. I don't feel a strong attachment to it but I did close for it much more than I'd care to admit. It's all up to interpretation but terrible topicalities are a real non-starter so please don't make me vote on them.

Disadvantages: There isn't much to say about disads. We have all read them from day one so they are a debaters safest bet. Just have a nice and clean overview that explains the thesis of the disad with some impact calc and you will be golden. If you are feeling fancy, throw in a turn or two to spice things up.

Counterplans: A well researched, specific counterplan is beautiful. I firmly believe that the counterplan is the most under-utilized tool in the neg arsenal and should be used in conjunction with a strong internal net benefit grounded in literature surrounding the aff. Any and all theory arguments need to be well explained.

Kritiks: I spent a good deal of time working with these so I feel right at home in K rounds. I've read almost all major kritiks at one point or another but if you are going off the beaten path and reading something I've not yet seen be sure to explain it in terms we can all understand. I do hold kritiks to a higher level of scrutiny because they are often very fluid in that they have a shifting win condition that varies from K to K. Make sure it is clear why I should evaluate things a certain way or why I should care. If you don't give me framing then you aren't getting a ballot.

Performance affs/negs: These rounds are fun to watch; I'll be more than happy to be in the back of them.

I am a former policy and IX debater, so speed is not much of an issue for me. I don't have a particular attachment to the formalities of debate, so theory arguments that can't prove obvious abuse don't move me too much. I think arguments designed to evaluate a policy proposal or resolution are more meaningful than arguments designed to 'win the game', and following that all advice I give is more in the interest of promoting clearly reasoned analysis than in the interest of strictly winning rounds. I believe that the burden of identifying specious logic is on the debater answering an argument, so I will not discredit faulty logic of an argument unless it is identified, but I will discredit responses to an argument that are similarly specious. If there are any other particular questions about how I judge, please ask me at the beginning of the round. If y'all have any questions or concerns about any feedback I give after the round, please feel free to reach out to me to expand or clarify anything, particularly since I am aware that my criticisms often are or appear harsh or unreasonable and I am always interested in adapting my language and approach to best engage debaters without dismissing or embittering them.

About me:

I was a 4-year policy debater at Roosevelt High School, Sioux Falls.

I want to be on the email chain david.wells [at] yale.edu or kinderifer [at] gmail.com.

he/him

Policy:

Speed is probably 7/10. I am tech oriented. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad but I am willing to hear otherwise. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Don't be mean. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs:

-Aff needs a clear internal link chain to the impact. Teams often focus too much on impacts and not enough of the debate on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that still take norms of morality into consideration.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

- Judge instruction is important. If you don't tell me how to evaluate debates, I will usually just default to pragmatism and decide myself. I hate doing this.

-I usually start at 28.5 and go up or down based on performance. Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction goes a long way.

PF:

I will be a flow judge. Tech > Truth. Impact calculus/weighing is a good way to get to my ballot.

If 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, 1st summary doesn't have to extend defense.

Debate what you're best at. The policy arguments I have seen/read run the gamut. I will be comfortable with most arguments.

I dislike the phrase offtime "roadmap," and I try not to pull the trigger on uncarded or unwarranted frameworks.

LD:

I will be a flow judge. Tech > Truth. I think the value and criterion are just a lens to filter the case debate so if you want my ballot you should start there. Don't be mean. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

If you want to read circuit LD arguments, I will follow but I will hold you to a policy debate standard. Practically, that means I will try not to pull the trigger on blippy or unwarranted theory arguments and the like, but I like plans, kritiks, etc.

I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible, so please use judge instruction liberally. This is especially important in LD where I may be unfamiliar with how some of your frameworks will filter the flow. Including an extra sentence about what your case looks like under your criterion will go a long way with me.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.