NSDA PF Update: Hey folks, I'm very familiar with debate overall, but I mostly come from a background of policy-focused debate, also including theory and kritiks. I did PF a few times in high school (including once at Nationals and making semifinals at State), but what you should be aware of is that I am less familiar with circuit PF norms. So: if you think those norms matter and should be enforced at any point, you need to (1) explain to me what the norms are and (2) why they matter in the context of the round. Simply asserting "people shouldn't talk fast in PF!" with no further explanation will not serve you well, for example. Will I vote on things like topicality or Ks in PF? Absolutely, at least assuming you win the argument.
TL;DR I know what I'm doing, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. If you're looking for a judge to read "wacky" arguments in front of, it's probably me. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison.
I did Parli for 3 years at Ashland HS (Oregon) and broke at ToC my senior year. I just finished my third year of NFA-LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark, which included breaking and being a top 5 speaker at Nationals. I've been Head Coach at Catlin Gabel for two years. 19-4 on the winning side when judging on elim panels ;)
Main Judging Philosophy:
Progressive/Flow judge. I will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want. Yes, that means I will vote on anything, but I should also say that I (usually) can't vote on an argument if I don't really understand it, so explain your stuff and don't assume I'm familiar with your arguments or lit base. The takeaway: do whatever as long as you can justify it.
Debate is a game. Tech > Truth. It has come to my attention that no judge can be 100% tab, which is why I am now 110% tab. That being said, if you say something super blatantly false without any justification or warrants I will still be big sad. And even though tech > truth, you need warrants if you want to win on tech.
I strongly prefer policy-oriented debate (or Kritiks, or T/theory) over value debates (this goes for both LD and Parli) but if you want to have a value debate I will evaluate that too; it's your round.
I can definitely handle speed, but I would like to be on the email chain or have access to whatever file sharing you plan on using (ideally speechdrop <3). Also please go slower on tags so I can have pen time to get them down, but if you'd like to speed through the actual text of the cards go for it. For Parli, please read all important texts twice (plan/CP texts, interps and counterinterps, etc). If someone asks you to slow or clear and you do not make an effort to do so, your speaks will suffer, but I will not intervene and drop you. I am open to voting on speed theory but the argument needs to be made and won in order for me to do so.
I like it when you generate lots of offense. I theoretically could vote on presumption but have only done so once.
Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.
I have done my fair share of wacky things in rounds including praying that God will enact the resolution, reading the Lorax on a climate topic, saying I should win so my coach would let me go to the beach, making memes a voting issue, and revoking my opponent's right to speak, so I'm game for that kind of stuff if you want, but you still need to win the arguments (obviously).
Simply asserting "XYZ is in the rules" without giving me reasons why those rules are good or should be enforced is not very persuasive. Give me some kind of impact. "T is a voter for education and fairness" is almost always a better argument than "T is a voter because of the rules."
Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21."
Things I default to if no other articulation is made in round (but these are very easily changed, just make the argument): Net benefits, T before K before case, competing interps, magnitude>probability.
Positions I like/dislike:
(NOTE: I will not auto-vote for/against these; what is argued in round matters most and my personal preferences are irrelevant if you win the flow. This is just for you to get an idea of my familiarity with stuff and what could require more work in front of me. I will never auto-drop or refuse to evaluate an argument unless it's clearly morally problematic)
Like: Topicality, (most) theory, cap, queer theory, (some) D&G, good politics DAs (which are very rare unfortunately), "strange" impact turns (nuke war good, econ collapse good, etc.), framing arguments, Ks and DAs that turn case, idk probably some more stuff. K affs and policy affs are both cool (but I'm down to vote on framework if you win it obviously)
Dislike: Bad politics DAs, security Ks, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Ks without alts, actor/agent CPs, 50 States, arguments without impacts, super blippy positions that get significantly backfilled (e.g. 1-card Ks or DAs, 1-2 sentence T/Theory without the full shell, etc.)
When I'm competing I split aff rounds pretty evenly between policy and K affs, and my 1NCs usually consist of a T shell or two, a K, a DA + CP, and case turns/answers or some vague combination of those things. I probably collapse to T or theory in at least half my neg rounds lol, maybe even ~70% of them.
Disclaimer: if you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and potentially drop you. This is the only time I will intervene.
If you say the magic phrase "Uh Oh Spaghetti-O's" in your speech I might give you extra speaker points. This is my way of knowing if people have read my paradigm.
I don't flow CX. If you want something that was brought up during CX to make it on the flow, you need to reference it during speech time and tell me where it's relevant on the flow and why.
I don't take speaking style into account at all because doing so is often ableist and discriminatory against marginalized groups. IEs are judged based on talking pretty; debate shouldn't be. If you quote JFK at me I will either laugh or cry; maybe both.
If you have any questions about specific arguments, other preferences, or whatever else, feel free to ask before the round!