I'm no longer involved in the debate community. If you're reading this, you're probably in the wrong place.

I used to have a very long, detailed paradigm about how I would allow anything under xyz circumstances. However, after watching a few rounds at a recent tournament, I've changed my paradigm on debate.

I would now like debate to do what debate is meant to do:

Democratically and critically engage with pressing issues.

I will no longer listen to nontopical affirmatives. (Although you're welcome to run questionably topical affirmatives and try to convince me). I will start docking speaker points for incomprehensible speeds and yelling at me or your opponent. I will begin evaluating debates how they are meant to be evaluated, as a question of the resolution.

Experience
I debated 2 years of Public Forum in High School.
I’ve judged mostly high school Lincoln Douglas for the last 6 years.
I debated Policy for the University of Nebraska Lincoln for 3 years.

I debated Policy in high school, but now most often judge PF and LD. That being said, I'm a huge fan of almost anything related to/taken from policy. I've always considered myself a much better judge than I ever was a competitor. I'm open to evaluating almost* anything, and will vote on pretty much anything that is defined as a voting issue during the round. I prefer to not have to do a lot of work at the end of the round, so make sure to make everything clear by the end of it. Strike up a conversation with me before the round and I can explain this sort of thing more clearly to ya'll.

I tend to evaluate framework first, then case.

Do not have your coach come into the room, ask the other competitor/team to disclose, and then leave the room with them to prep against them. I will be upset and it will not look good on you.

I like to give lots of feedback at the end of the round, and explain my decision as fully as possible, so if you need to feel free to cut me off.

*don't be purposefully offensive/edgy

I was debating when public forum first started, and I have been involved with it ever since. As such, I've tried to keep in mind the original spirit of PF while adjusting for what I feel are inevitable aspects of the current nature of the event.

-I think a good PF round should be able to be understood by any average person who reads a lot of news. I expect that an intelligent person, if paying close attention to the round, should be able to follow along while receiving a good understanding of subject material.

-I dislike lying. If it comes out that you are making up something that is clearly not inferable from your evidence, and you are called out on it, I will trust your interpretation of facts slightly less for the rest of the round.

-I am a PF coach, so I usually am versed enough in the topic to give a decent topic analysis. (If it's a foreign policy topic I'm probably not going to fall for BS, but if it's an economics topic you might be able to trick me.) It is okay to speak at a level of assumed basic facts about the resolution, but I will not give unexplained link chains and warrants very much weight.

-Speed is not preferred, but I can usually follow along, and it won't necessarily cost you. If you want to guarantee I catch everything on my flow, don't go too fast.

-Remind me of claim/warrant/impact structure in each speech. I expect robust explanations of these in constructive, and an incorporation of a brief summation of each argument from which you are trying to achieve impacts throughout the round. Simply repeating the names of cards without context might not register very heavily with me.

-I don't flow crossfire really, but I do pay attention to establishment of weighing mechanisms, definitions, moral playing fields, framework agreements, etc., and accept an agreement in crossfire as standing unless nullified in a following speech.

-Don't belittle your opponents personally, for any reason. I know debates get heated and that's ok, just make it about the arguments and not your opponent's intelligence.

-I am used to teams rebuilding in 2nd rebuttal, but it's not necessary if you aren't used to it.

-I get so bored during evidence exchanges. Please keep them necessary and brief. I will accept logical rebukes of your opponent's sources a lot of the time without you having to look at evidence.

-Frameworks need to be responded to, but if you just state it at the beginning of the round and then never mention it again until final focus, I'm probably not going to factor it very heavily into my decision.

-My biggest areas of knowledge from training or formal education are: Ecology, Foreign Policy, International Relations, World Religions, and Political Philosophy. One of my many jobs is being a market gardener of vegetables and flowers. I'm also an avid forager. I might be especially swayed by widespread geological impacts. I love a good pollinator collapse impact link chain; just terrifying.

-If, hypothetically, a round was tied in every way, I would be fine choosing a winner based on who delivered their arguments with more believability and inspiration. You almost certainly aren't going to lose for delivery, but I really appreciate it when somebody is debating like they actually care about what they are talking about.

-Primarily a PF coach and judge with experience in all debate events.

-I'm a note/flow judge, although arguments are still weighed on their quality rather than just quantity "pulled through". The earlier and more consistently an argument is made, the more weight it will have if carried to the end of the round.

-This is in addition to weighing arguments on their evidence and impact(s). While I won't insert outside arguments into the round, a weaker argument will still be weighed accordingly even if the opponents don't respond sufficiently (although a team that clearly rebuts bad argument will win the point more strongly).

-Evidence is important, especially the more specific the data or the more counter-intuitive a claim is. I remember citations in round by their content more than the author: so rather than only saying e.g. "our Smith card already refutes that point", be sure to also bring the simple explanation of what the evidence says and how it applies.

-Because topics will often provide contradictory evidence for debaters to use and my ability to investigate authors/credibility/etc in round is limited, it's often the case that the side that offers the best warrant analysis in round can make the difference (explain why your evidence makes more sense).