TL;DR: I use to actually debate, now I judge debates. Any speed or style is fine by me, please don't change your argumentation to fit me, unless you really want to? Well-versed in everything typically run. Add me to the email chain by copying and pasting this:
Feel free to email me if you want more clarity on an RFD, card, or comment.
I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying of any type, but especially against younger debaters, LGBTQ+ debaters, and debaters of color. Any of the above will always supersede the debate itself, and I'll report you to tab/your coach.
- COVID Update: I'll be judging at tournaments online! No worries, I debated on the TFA circuit for years. I might ask for you to repeat stuff due to lag/poor audio quality, which is not something I would normally do. Online debate is pretty much the same though.
-Line by line >>>>>>>>>>>.>>......>>>>>>.....>>> Overviews :(
-Debated for 3 years at Prosper HS in Texas, currently judging at either St. Louis UDL tournaments or national circuit places, all while attempting to force my university to fund a policy team. Open to whatever. Specific args are covered below.
-Arguments I went for too much in my high school days: Gender fluidity, Capitalism, Bio/Necro ptx, and environmental stuff.
-No one is truly tab, but I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased to any argument, and generally, I will default to truth > tech, barring a compelling debate reason.
- Ptx junkie, so higher threshold on elections/senate/x bill DAs, will burn terrible uq cards.
-I flow on my laptop normally, but if it dies I'd like to think I can still do my pen flip from high school.
-Don't be obnoxiously rude in any round with a clear skill gap between the teams, just debate normally. Toxicity is always bad. Respect the pronouns, experiences, or identities of the other debaters/judge(s)/crowd. Treat your partner nicely, and don't lash out if the round isn't going your way.
Do these things:
-Specific line by line analysis/organized speeches = cool
-ROB/Framing = cooler
-Warrants are the coolest.
Avoid these things:
-Blippy, blitz analytics
-Stealing prep, I'll probably notice you doing it. *Merging docs together or whatever as your partner furiously types is still prep*
-I'm not a hard judge to impress, but if you want higher speaker points, debate however you normally would. Please don't try to 'adapt' to me, I won't hurt any debater's speaks for using whatever style they prefer. On my speaks scale, the points are typically 27.5 - 30. That's the range, but it's kinda hard to be at the lower end of the spectrum with me judging, I'm pretty forgiving. Still, I'll adjust it slightly to the tournament setting if I need to, yet a 30 is always a 30. Post rounding is fine, but don't overdo it.
- I'll always try to give an oral decision and RFD.
-Please feel free to ask questions and interrogate it, if it's a panel, maybe hold off until the other judges have spoken. Even though I'm fine with you grilling me about my ballot, recognize that it won't change either way.
-If we're in a rush or whatever, shoot me an email or find me later on at the tournament to clear anything up.
-Don't assume I know the aff or topic literature, especially at the beginning of the year.
-Please don't ignore the mechanism of the aff post 1AC, sticking a line in the overview isn't enough either.
-Weaponize the aff, most of the time the neg team does minimal actual debating on the solvency or inner workings of a 1AC, and they shift the focus purely to internal links to the impact scenarios.
-I think aff teams that can extend and expand on the core thesis of the plan are a lot more likely to win a perm or beat a CP or Alt straight up.
-Solvency advocates are nice.
-Every aff challenges T in some way. I'll default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise persuasively. Reasonability is a contextual argument, it can definitely be won in front of me.
-The neg needs to win an impact here, and the more articulated this is, the more comfortable I am voting on T.
-I think FXT and Extra - T are severely underused arguments that can prove abuse.
-I like the Block/2NR to have a case list of hypothetical topical affs.
-If the aff is questionably topical, make sure you convince me that it is/isn't topical
-These are super common, read them if you want, I've certainly read my fair share.
-Outline the methodology or the stance, don't be beyond shifty in CX on what the aff actually does.
-Please try to keep it in the direction of the topic.
-I'm well versed in most K lit, but don't assume I understand your unique spin on "insert author here".
-The same logic applies as above, most neg teams still fail to attack the actual mechanism of the aff, so utilize that.
-Performance affs are also awesome and totally have a place in the debate space, I've judged them in my local UDL for over 2 years now.
-The best FW args are the ones that actually recognize the point of a K aff.
-A TVA or SSD is much more persuasive than fairness by itself.
-That being said, in round abuse exists, and FW can easily be won in front of me.
-Just tread carefully, and keep how you access the ballot as the focus (for both teams, if that wasn't clear.)
-Win a strong link. Articulate an impact chain. Outline the method of the alternative for me.
-Don't assume I know the K lit. Avoid buzzwords and 4-minute overviews.
-Remember that ROB/ROJ args make it a much easier ballot for the K.
-I'll vote for any K argument that you can explain to me, but sometimes more is less with K debate on the links or MPX.
-If the K is your typical strategy, don't change it in front of me, I love hearing new critical strategies or presentations.
-The more specific they are, the better.
-Don't read outdated ptx scenarios or whatever.
-Internal link chains are nice when remembered.
-A 2NR can totally torpedo a solid policy aff with an equally solid DA, if this is your style, go for it.
-I love a unique DA with a fun MPX scenario!!!
-Innovative CPs are much more likely to get my ballot, but I'll listen to whatever.
-Consult, delay and that whole crowd are probably abusive and a reason to reject the CP outright.
-A CP that goes for sufficiency framing is cool, but you can out solve the aff if you want?
-Solvency advocates crystallize a CP for me, but you don't necessarily need one.
-Net benefits are under-explained or often chalked up to a DA, so focus a tad more on how you differentiate from the aff.
-I don't like intervening, so please don't make me vote on whether your 15-second blip in the 2AC/the block that became 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR was worthy of voting down the other team, yet...
- Disclosure theory is :( and usually used by big schools to bully smaller institutions, but brand new K affs are probably bad.
-CP's theory is the most common stuff I come across, go for it. I'll def entertain condo theory if you read 3+ CPs or Ks or whatever. As noted above, abusive CPs like consult or delay are legit theoretical aff objections.
-Speed theory or something along those lines is solid if you can explain an accessibility concern, that's a true reason to vote down a team.
-I have a decent enough background with LD. Do whatever you normally do, everything noted above and below applies with a few caveats.
-Theory hacking is annoying and quite boring. Time sucks are probably bad.
-LARP or progressive debate techniques are totally welcomed in front of me
-Some sort of framing is probably a good idea, but I'm not some value/criterion absolutist.
-Refer to the above
-Sticky defense is fine
-Send the speech docs, I like to read PF evidence since it's so blippy.
-Impact (MPX) debate is really cool, but framing is even cooler.
-Feel free to run CX/LD style arguments
-I will never approach a PF debate as a lay judge, sorry.