My email for speech documents is: logycdocs@gmail.com

HS debate from 1991 - 1995

CEDA/NDT debate at Pace University from 1995 - 2000.

I assistant coached at St. Marks from 2001-2004.

Long break until 2020.

I am currently coaching a new program.

In short:

Speaking clarity is very important.
Judges enforce speech time and pick a winner.
Judges judge best that intervene least.

High speaker points for clarity, excellent research, depth, and understanding of arguments.
Respect your opponents.

Low speaker points for lack of speaking clarity, reliance on debate theory over research.

I will mostly try to flow without looking at your speech documents. If I can't understand what you are saying due to clarity issues, I won't shore that up by reading along in the speech document.

I will attempt to render a decision based on how you weigh the debate, rather than my own interpretation of how to weigh the arguments.

K-AFF:

These were invented during my long break from debate. I've judged one round of k-aff so far in JV as of 9/8/2021. In that one round, I voted neg on a counter kritik of academia that said the neg was plagiarizing the aff, which was good, because we need to rebel against academia, so I "voted neg to vote aff". That's just how that debate played out on the flow.

So far, I don't see myself casting my ballot as though I am starting a social movement or that it will have out-of-round impacts on the issues being discussed during the round. If I thought my ballot had out-of-round impacts on those issues, I think I would not limit my decision to what was discussed in the round, but rather I would intervene with my own research and opinions. Maybe I am missing something here, and you can explain it better.