Email - firstname.lastname@example.org - please include me on the email chain!
As an FYI, I don't coach for any teams currently, and last debated as a senior in high school, so I probably have a little less experience with the intricate details of a lot of arguments than other judges, especially as the season is starting. Explaining everything out to me, no matter how obvious it might seem, is a great way to earn my ballot.
Judging Philosophy - My default position is that debate is an educational competition, and that by exchanging arguments in this space we gain knowledge on the topic, the world, political mechanisms, activism, etc. I can be convinced out of this reasoning but sans framework it's where I default.
I am adamant that I vote only on the arguments presented to me in the round. If an argument is clearly abusive, doesn't link, makes no sense, has no supporting warrants - I am counting on YOU to be the one to point it out. This is a test of your skills, not mine. I've voted for DAs that clearly don't link simply because the Aff let's Neg get away with it - always call out the other team and don't count on me to do it.
A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but you need to point out why this wins you the round.
Slurs or abusive language/arguments designed to hurt others (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc), is an auto-ballot against the violating team. "Fascism good" arguments fall under this category as well.
Sans above, I will be willing to vote for any argument, but historically, I've noted what I find more persuasive below.
Topicality - I'll be honest that I have rarely voted on T's that were not dropped in whole/in part. The neg needs to make the argument that T is a priori (as I will not assume this). The Neg should attempt to prove what education/ground has been lost by the aff with actual examples, otherwise I tend to be unconvinced. If you're going for T, make it the whole 2NR.
DAs - always cool (Unless you're going for "climate change good / isn't happening" in which case I will laugh you out of the room)
CPs - always cool - Neg run what you want, aff run theory it's abusive. Arguments that tell me "this is what debate will look like if we allow ______" are a must if you're arguing abuse.
Ks - cool if explained well. A layperson's explanation is a must, especially on psychoanalytic Ks. It's not necessary for K's critiquing Aff's specific plan epistemology to have an alt, but is never a bad idea. Ks that critique the resolution/general format of policy (IE 'state bad') should absolutely have one. Aff - always question the link.
FW - super cool - needs to be in every round.
Theory - cool - I'm probably in the minority of judges who think so. But debate is a competition, and debating best practices that allow everyone to play the competition are intriguing to me. Statements like "Debate becomes _______" or "Debate will look like ________" are essential.
Performance Affs - cool, but should still be "topical". At minimum, a "plan text" that states "We [do the resolution] by ________".
Impact Calc - absolutely necessary. Probability / questioning the link always seems neglected in favor of magnitude, which would be a mistake for me.
General Things I like:
- SLOW DOWN on your Tags! and tell me NEXT when moving on!
- Explicitly contrasting FW/Role of the Ballot.
- Explaining the benefits or drawbacks of the world of the alt
- Questioning the warrants of cards
- Reading more than just the T or Theory shells.
- Theory debates where we are having honest discussions on game theory/what is best for debate, and moving beyond shell arguments.
Things I'm not the biggest fan of:
- Running Condo with less than 4 off case
- 5 or more off case
- Elections DAs more than 6 months before an election
- Sticking ONLY with T or Theory Shells
- Reading off standards/voters in T/Theory without explaining what they mean (What the heck is "reasonable"? Or "education"?)
- Not explaining the warrants/alt of the K to me.
- Heck, reading any K and not being able to explain it with current / relevant examples outside the space of the round