In the case of debate competition,  the team, or individual, who presents the case most clearly,  confidently, intelligently, professionally wins.

In addtion to that, (having left any personal prejudices outside the door),  the person or team with the most convincing and persuasive evidence wins.

When I judge I do not look at the students as competitors at a student competition, generally, but as though they are standing before congress, or courtroom, the U.N. or some other general body, in a real life situation.  At times, I have suggested to students to imagine the same thing in regard to themselves.

I also am more focused on the quality of an argument that the quantity.   Meaning that if in a particular competition for example,  a student has a seven minute time limit and gives an 'awesome' presentation in five minutes then sits down; he/she may win over someone who stretches their comments out to the seven minute time limit, who may not have enough material and thereby rambles aimlessly for the next two minutes.

I am a coach and a traditional type of judge.

Generally, while I don't mind a debater talking fast, I loathe spreading or spewing. I do not think there is any skill in just talking fast. If i cannot keep with your arguments in my flow, you risk losing the round.

In LD, because it is a value debate, I tend to focus on Value and value criterion in judging rounds. Your contentions should be connected to your value and criterion. I don't see a problem with counter-plans but they should be presented in the context to prove your value and value criterion.

In PF the winning team will have a well researched, well organized case. A strong framework is important, and the team that can show, through their evidence and their arguments, impacts will likely win.

Sam Bemis

Background: 2 years CX and 1 year LD for Hillcrest High School, currently coaching for Jordan High School

(Because I'm only judging LD for Silver and Black, my paradigm will only cover LD for now)

Overview: I value both traditional and progressive debate; my only preference is that you debate the form with which you are most comfortable. That being said, I believe that debaters should be able to run all types of arguments, so I am willing to vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained, defended, and impacted (or whatever your framework says it has to be). I rely heavily on my flow, so if you are organized and prove to me how you win on the flow I am most likely going to vote for you.

Specifics:

Speed: Judges lie about how fast they can flow, so slow down on your taglines. If I say "CLEAR" more than two times, I will stop writing. 

Prep: Flex prep is fine. If you don't use all your time I will think you are pompous. Prep ends when your USB leaves the port.

CP: Great! You need a plan text, and be ready to prove competition.

Theory: I believe theory is a legitimate way to check abuse, so if you are unable to prove in-round abuse or don't clearly explain your voters, you probably won't win that argument. Theory debates, when correctly structured and warranted, can be very interesting and useful, but it makes me sad when it is used as a time suck. 

Framework: Insofar as I've seen, framework or Value/Criterion is underutilized. When frameworks are argued and impacted, my heart smiles. Be sure to tell me why you've won the framework debate, and how that puts the ballot in your favor. 

Kritiks: I think K's are fantastic, but please don't expect me to know your obscure Kritik right away. If you can't get me to understand it in-round, then you probably shouldn't be running it. In my opinion, which has been heavily influenced by my Policy background, and argument is not a Kritik unless it has an alternative. If you run a "critical" argument but don't have an alternative, I will evaluate it as a DA to the case (which is what it is, really).

Traditional: I love a good traditional debate! Debating "traditionally" doesn't exclude you from theoretical or highly philosophical argumentation, it really just means you are speaking more slowly and avoiding technical jargon. I have seen some highly-skilled traditional debaters beat progressive debaters, and that is exciting.

Speaker points: Speaker points are more a reflection of your speaking style and organization. If you are professional, considerate, organized, and make intelligent arguments, you will get high speaker points. 30 means you were close to flawless, 29.5 means you were probably the best I've seen in a tournament, 29 is impressive, 28 is close to great, 27 is average, 26 means you didn't impress me, and 25 and below means you probably have some things to work on and/or were rude.

Body Language: I try to give non-verbal feedback. I will nod if I agree, roll my eyes or make a scrunched face if I disagree, roll my eyes or tap my pen if I think you should move on, and flow vigorously when you are saying things of importance. 

Miscellaneous: Please don't shake my hand! I love that everyone is friendly, but sickness is not something I would like to share.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me: bemissam@gmail.com

I look forward to judging you! I believe that judges are obligated to work, learn, and listen in a round, and everyone in that round deserves to be respected and appreciated. Debate is a fantastic space and activity, and I hope to facilitate an exciting and educational experience. 

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Background - Debated LD in highschool. Current debate coach.

Speed - 9/10 on speed, but signpost very clearly if speaking quickly.

Style - prefer traditional, but progressive is fine if run well.

Framework - I like value and criterion clash. I evaluate winner of framework first, then use the winning framework to evaluate impacts.

Impacts - Every argument should be clearly impacted. I heavily weigh imminent and highly likely impacts over potential hypothetical slippery slope scenarios (ie don't run nuke extinction unless the path to extinction is very clear and highly probable). I ask that you provide an impact analysis in your final speech. Show me clearly where your impacts outweigh.

Topicality - I rarely vote for topicality unless opponent is blatantly off-topic.

Theory - fine if you run it well.

Kritiks - fine if you run them well. Explicitly state where the links apply.

Plans - Aff is never required to have a formal plan, and no plan text is required when discussing possible pragmatic implementation. I don't vote for counterplans (instead run it as a traditional style argument).

Prep - Flashing isn't prep, but you do your best to be quick. Excessive issues will result in loss of speaker points.

Respect - I am fine with heated debate, but no blatant disrespect, ableism, homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia etc, and no advocating in round for murder, genocide, or oppression.

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

I am a parent from Boise, Idaho and this is my fourth year of judging LD and PF. We don't see many students running progressive cases so my LD experience is almost all traditional. 

I believe effective communication is important, but I can handle some speed as long as you emphasize your case framework.  Please give me clear and distinct taglines for value, criterion, contentions etc so I can keep up and flow the round.  I also strive for a tabula rasa (blank slate) perspective, setting aside my personal knowledge and opinions.  I base my judgement on the information you provide during the round and your ability to present and support your case while refuting your opponent's case.

I'm looking for logical connections between your VC and contentions, enough evidence to demonstrate your logic, definitions (especially if your case depends on a particular interpretation of ambiguous or esoteric terms in the resolution), clash that shows me the gaps in your opponent's case, and voters.  Although I haven't heard many, I'm open to progressive cases, but I still want to hear the logic in a narrative and clear explanations of links and impacts in kritiks.

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

I do tend to judge a lot based on speaking skills. Presentation, body language, and confidence are all very important.

I can understand when the speaker is speaking rapidly, however I don't appreciate it when clarity of the case is sacrificed for speed.

Public Forum Paradigm

Defense needs to be in summary. If it's not in summary, I'm less likely to consider it in final focus.

Time allocation is also super important. There needs to be a balance between explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts.

Don't be offensive.

I have been involved with Speech & Debate for five years, primarily judging Humor, Duet, Policy Debate and Public Forum. My background is in Communication and Business/Marketing, and currently work for the government. I am not an expert or a paid coach, so cherry picking about technicalities may not prove beneficial or create an advantage you had hoped for.

In terms of judging Public Form, I enjoy clash that is done with respect. In other words, I will vote you down if you are rude, use inappropriate language, and are obnoxious towards your opponents.

The debate should be well structured, clearly communicated, with depth and evidence. Therefore, quality, well-explained arguments will be favored over quanity. Obscure and confusing interpretations will be voted down. I expect teams to use timers (not their phones) as I prefer using my time to focus on your debate.

I try to avoid being influenced by my own personal beliefs when judging. I appreciate many types of sources and will not hesitate to ask to see your evidence at the end of a round. However, if I sense something is not right, I will not hesitate to seek clarification from the tournament's head judge before casting my ballot.

As this event has two speakers, if one team is significantly unbalanced and inconsistent, it will impact the vote. 

I appreciate immensely the time that debaters take to research and prepare for this extracurricular activity, and regardless of the outcome, you should feel proud of your participation!

BG:

Currently, I'm a radio news producer and have been for the last two years. Prior to kick-starting my career, I debated in college for 3 years, coached high school debate for 4 years, and competed in high school debate for 4 years.

I'm really up on current events, considering current events are my 9-5 and hobby. However, I love to learn new things and hear compelling and unique arguments.

In college, I competed in parliamentary debate. The best way to describe the event is like policy debate and extemporaneous speaking combined. I coached all forms of debate. And in high school, I did Oregon parliamentary debate and Public Forum.

What I like to see:

I'm a big fan of clash and having a clear flow. If I don't have it down on my paper, I'm less likely to vote for the argument. I'm a bit of a scatterbrain (thank you ADHD) so while I can keep up with a hoppy flow, I would prefer it keep it as clean as possible, for yours and my sake.

I enjoy strong impact and link debate and believe that's usually where the debate comes down to. When judging K debate, I believe framework and the impact debate are most important.

Additionally, I LOVE hearing arguments you wouldn't normally hear or go for. So, that wacky K or questionable disadvantage... free game. Debate isn't just about winning--I believe the fundamental point is learning and getting better at the craft. Try new things out when I'm your judge. I'll give you feedback and let you know how to make the case stronger for your next round.

I'm fine with speed, but will clear you if I have zero idea what you're saying. If I clear you or your opponent does more than twice, I would recommend just slowing down.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of trigger warnings when talking about sensitive subjects such as sexual assault and suicide. I won't automatically dock you if you don't inform me that you'll be talking about this before the start of the debate, but I probably will have a sour look on my face.

As always, feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

I debated for Sky View Highschool all throughout highschool.  My focus was on Lincoln Douglas, I occasionally did Oration.  I mainly did traditional debate, but I am pretty familiar with most progressive arguments.  I am not a fan of theory debate, mainly because I don't believe fairness exists.  With that in mind, please don't be an abusive jerk in round, I will drop you if your ethics are terrible.  I do my best to decide off of the flow.  Argumentation is a big deal.  Make all the claims you want, but warrants are where it's at.  I do my best to give a decent RFD because it is the worst to get out of round, find out you lost, and have no idea what to change for next time.  Show me that you fulfill your F/W and your opponent's F/W better than they do and you will have a happy Cassie.  Feel free to ask any questions before the round begins.

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

Lay judge. 

I've been judging for four years. I have judged at NSDA nationals and several bid tournaments. I try to flow (but my son says that I suck at it)

Key strategies for winning my ballot:

- Use empirical evidence (data, examples, etc.)

- Framework is unnecessary.... But if you do run framework, use it throughout ALL your speeches

- Speak clearly. I don't like spreading

- I don't like progressive debates; keep it traditional

- Clash with your opponents, but be civil

- Use full cites for evidence (Name, Date, publication/source)

- I will only vote off of arguments in summary AND final focus

Seating: I prefer the Pro side to be seated to my left and the con to my right

Timing: Please keep track of your own time during speeches and your prep time as well.

Scoring: Here is what a score reflects in my judging.

20 points = A weak performance. Poorly constructed arguments, no strong framework. A great deal of improvement needs to take place.

21 points = A great deal of work will be needed to get to the top of the debate game. Below average performance and speech writing.

22 points = Well below average. Signs of skill were present but not enough to get better marks or a victory in the round.

23 points = Not bad but certainly not good. More than three areas of weakness were shown and will need to be addressed.

24 points = A rather common speech. Nothing too great but nothing overly poor. This is very typical of what see. Average performance.

25 points = A solid speech but, perhaps, an uninspiring or unspectacular one. Strong performance but can improve and deliver more.

26 points = Well above average; only subtly flawed performance.

27 points= Consistently strong performance; superior delivery and content.

28 points = An extraordinary achievement in interscholastic debate; an impressive performance.

29 points = Outstanding speech. a rare presentation akin to the finest public speech seen in any public forum.

30 points = Magnificent speech. I would be fortunate to ever hear this sort of high quality of speech in any high school setting again.

Tie Breaker: I will always look through the flow of the case first to determine a winner. In the case of a tie, I will then turn to my philosophy to determine which team had the better speaking and presentation of their debate.

Philosophy: I follow the three P's

Poise

Pronunciation 

Professionalism

Poise: I look for well you conduct yourself and present your argument. 

Pronunciation: You are welcome to speak quickly and present as much information as you choose but if I can't understand you, you cannot be successful. 

Professionalism: How you treat your opponents. Do you respect them and attack their arguments, not themselves? I must strongly emphasize professionalism during cross-examination and grand cross. Do not speak over your opponent in an attempt to control the debate. I will dock a full point (from the individual, not the entire team) for disrespecting an opponent during questioning. Though it may or many not have an impact on the final decision it will affect your individual marks.

Sign Posting: Use it. I love it and it helps keep all my flow charts more accurate.

Final Thoughts: No I will not disclose so do not ask.

I tend to lead towards quality not quantity when it comes to arguments and speaking rate.

Have fun. If you want me to enjoy judging your debate than I better see that you are enjoying debating.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

For HS Policy:

I genuinely love judging, and I’m excited to see what you choose to do in the round. First and foremost: run the arguments you want to run and do whatever style fits you best. I will reward teams that understand the arguments they are making, provide nuanced analysis about the interactions between arguments, and explain the impact of an argument on my ballot. I'm open to everything.

Most important thing you can do for me is answer the following questions:

1. Why is winning this argument important to the outcome of the round?

2. How does this argument interact with other arguments in the round? (Does it outweigh? Is it a prior question? Does this render another part of the debate irrelevant?)

3. What is the impact of this argument? (whether that is an in-round impact or a fiat-based impact)

Small things:

· Please time your own speech. I also time, but sometimes fail to start my timer and appreciate the backup.

· Be very clear when you are starting and stopping prep. Do not prep unless a clock is running (which includes talking to your partner, saving your doc, writing notes, etc). If you are sending/uploading your doc you can stop the clock, but excessive delays will affect your speaker points.

· I’m understanding about tech difficulties as long as you’re clearly communicating.

· Make sure everyone is ready before beginning your speech. My greatest pet peeve is launching into a speech while I’m still getting ready.

· Off-time road maps are welcome, but they should be very short. No need to tell me specific args, just tell me what pages to put where.

About specific arguments: I love T and theory, and I'm a great judge for those kinds of debates. DA debating is a classic and is always welcome. Counterplans are a great test of the aff, but make sure you have a clear net benefit. Kritiks are welcome, but I find they are sometimes debated shallowly at the high school level. They are best if you really know your stuff and can explain it to me. I generally believe that neg fiat and conditional advocacies are welcome (but always willing to hear a debate otherwise).

Lots of people have asked about my experience (which I think is useful for debaters to know when adapting to a judge). I did PF in high school on a very slow, traditional circuit. However, I then also competed in very fast, technical college policy. What you should take from this is that I can respect all types of debate, so long as your approach is well-executed. I'm a good judge for fast and technical debate, but I don't think fast and technical is the only way to win a debate.

Past Experience: I was a four year policy debater in high school and was an assistant coach for several years after high school but have not seen a debate round for several years. My speed and flowing capacity are not as fast as they used to be so taglines need to be clear and analysis can be fast but needs to be well understood.

Overall I like impact calculus. The Aff needs to prove that if I vote aff their plan will affect the world in a positive way and the neg needs to prove the opposite.

Feel free to ask specific questions before round.