Please ask.

I prefer to weigh real-world impacts over procedurals -- procedurals with no standards and voters will not earn my ballot.

T = fine, so long as it filters through the first comment.

H / I = I'm not super concerned about inherency. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I want to be able to evaluate your policy as an alternative to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

S = Obviously you need to prove you can solve to have a risk of impacts to your advantages. Likewise DAs need to explain links and internal links to have risk of happening.

Adv. / DAs = yes please.

I mostly base my decisions on good policy. I do mix in stock issues of they are applicable which is mostly topicality.

I prefer real-world arguments.

Good speech organization is always a positive foot forward.

Respect for each other is key. I do not like shouting matches or putting down of others.

Counterplans are acceptable if they are sound.

I am not a fan of Kritiks or Resolution Justification.

My preference on the pace of speech is the pace at which the common man can understand. In short, if you're gasping for breath, you're too fast.

I did debate all through high school and college, and have coached it as well. So I can keep up with most arguments and ideas.

Things I like in a debate are clash, good theory, stock issues, and impact calc. The more straightforward the better. The more squirrely your argument the less likely I am to vote for it.

PLEASE DO ROADMAPS

I like good Topicality arguments, and can't stand ones that are just there for time sucks or because you have nothing better to run. Please don't do this.

I really don't care for K's. If you run a good one, and it explain it very well, I'm good with it.

Some speed is fine, but if you can't say the whole word, you're going too fast.

Be polite. There is a line between being assertive and a jerk. Know that line, because I don't like voting for jerks, even if they were the better debater.

I debated in high school for all four years and participated in state debate twice. I will not vote often on topicality unless the aff case is blatantly untopical or if the topicality isn't answered. Counter-plans are fine they just need to meet all counter plan standards. Stock issues in the round is my most important voting point.

When it comes to forensics I will just judge according to the requirements of the event you are performing in.

I'm a flow judge. I'll judge based on what you give me to work with. I think that all arguments should be refuted on either side and that no argument should go unaddressed. All contestants should treat their opponents with respect and civility.

I don't believe Kritiks have a place in policy debate and I ignore them the majority of the time. Also, if you are running a Counterplan you must know how to use it.

Have a great debate and a great season! -Jake

Experienced debater. I value ability to summarize arguments in your own words. If you don't summarize a card or tell me in your own words how it links to a case/argument, then it doesn't exist. Always include a roadmap.