As a judge, my job is to evaluate how the debaters did, not to tell them that an argument is dumb. I consider it the responsibility of the other debater to do that. If a debater makes a bad argument, is it up to the opposing debater to point it out and explain why - I will vote for bad arguments if they are not responded to.

I am highly oriented towards a clear connection from evidence to the impacts. Debaters have less to prove to me if someone makes ridiculous claims unsupported by evidence - in fact I would be happy to vote down an argument if it has no evidence if the opponent simply points that out.

I also look closely towards value/framework arguments. I’m looking to answer the question of what should we do to answer the resolution, and I consider the value/framework a crucial part of answering that question.

I also don't particularly like speed because I think that it takes away from a person's ability to argue and think on the spot during rebuttals when giving a speech - you can't speed without something being written beforehand. However, I will not vote anyone down because of it.

I don't find arguments based in the semantics of a resolution to be very convincing. I won't vote a debater down because of it, but the arguer will have the burden of proof. They must explain why the argument matters before I will vote for it. In general this goes for all arguments, but it remains especially true for these.

Pronouns: any

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Southwest and Parliamentary at American University, and have experience judging LD, PF, and Parli. Professionally, I’ve worked most recently as a chemist and environmental health scientist.

GENERAL NOTES

I debated and now coach/judge debate because I truly enjoy the activity and think it provides excellent educational opportunities for students with a variety of interests and backgrounds. This isn’t my space but yours; please run whatever arguments that interest you and make you comfortable. The following notes are based on my aptitudes as a judge, but I don’t ‘dislike’ any forms of argumentation that are well warranted, clearly explained, and presented effectively.

Note on Trigger Warnings

A trigger warning is a verbal warning prior to the presentation of material that could be psychologically damaging (or triggering) to individuals who have experienced trauma. This warning allows individuals who may potentially be triggered to prepare themselves so they can actively participate in the debate. I believe that debate should be a safe and understanding place for all participants and believe that trigger warnings must be included by any debater who chooses to include graphic material of any kind, including but not limited to detailed descriptions of: violence based on gender, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Refusing to provide TWs for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points (see scale below).

SPEED
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s not mutually exclusive with clarity. I will not yell “clear” but an observant debater will find that I’ve stopped flowing and am looking up at them with a face of terror and/or confusion if I’m unable to understand their spread. If these non-verbal cues are ignored, the debater is responsible for any arguments I was unable to flow, which will not be weighed in subsequent speeches.

STANDARDS
I was never a big standards debater, so if your standards can be easily collapsed to a central weighing mechanism, please do so. If not, standards debate must be centered on the unique qualities of the standards themselves rather than a debater’s ability to meet the established standard (‘I achieve best’). Those are case arguments. Apply them to the case. I will choose the standard that is best warranted and explained as an appropriate mechanism to evaluate the impacts of the round.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
If you are running theory as a time suck, and it is obvious to everybody in the room (it probably is), I’m going to be annoyed at you and I probably won’t vote on it. However, I will vote theory/topicality if argued well for legitimate reasons. These are arguments I’m much less familiar with, so if you choose to make them it would be wise to take your time explaining the violations and implications clearly.

KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE
If you’re interested in a critical argument, 100% go for it. Make sure all the components are clearly present and explained. A clear role of the ballot is definitely important. Kritiks and performance debates are great because they usually allow for a greater diversity of arguments, but I also expect some level of authenticity with your advocacy. Do not spread a narrative. Do not drop a narrative in the 1AR. If you are using another person’s lived experience in a competitive atmosphere it is expected that you are respectful of that experience.

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

30

Perfect

Debater displays clear understanding of the topic and in-round arguments, case is presented not merely effectively but exceptionally. Way to go, super star!

29

Excellent

Debater effectively presents a well-developed case, fully utilizing time in speeches and cross examination. Speeches are well-organized and any issues in clarity are minor.

28

Good

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally well-developed. Debater fully utilizes their time and speeches are well-organized, though there may be some issues with clarity.

27

Average

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally developed sufficiently. Debater doesn’t fully utilize their allocated time. Speeches are generally signposted and easy to follow, though there may be some issues with clarity and organization.

26

Below Average

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions or poorly developed arguments, disorganization is distracting, and speech style/speed is difficult to understand. Cross examination is used for clarification questions only.

25

Poor

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions and poorly developed arguments, and is frequently difficult to understand due to speaking style/speed. Speeches are severely under time.

24 and below

Offensive

Debater is blatantly rude/disrespectful in or after round, uses graphic depictions of violence without utilizing TWs. Being a poor orator is not alone enough to receive a score below a 25.

NOTE: Points will be deducted, regardless of in-round performance, for debaters who argue with a decision post-round or pack up their belongings before the round and oral critique are concluded. This is disrespectful to your judge, your opponent, and the team you represent.

Feel free to ask any specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round!

NFA LD:

By default, I will judge according to the NFA LD rules. I am most comfortable evaluating rounds in a Stock Issues paradigm. If both debaters agree on a framework other than Stock Issues, I will do my best to evaluate the round within that framework. If one debater wants the round to be judged according to the rules and one debater does not, there will be a presumption in favor of following the rules, but I will listen to arguments explaining why the rules should not be followed.

I like to see high-quality evidence. I do not like to see evidence mischaracterized. I will penalize misused, misdated, miscited, or fabricated evidence according to how egregious the abuse is, and I will listen to calls to strike the card, strike the position, or drop the debater in the round.

I prefer debaters to speak at a conversational speed. You can go faster if you wish, but the faster you go, the less organized, detailed, and accurate my flow will be. I will listen to "Speed Bad" arguments.

Topicality and Inherency are voting issues until proven otherwise.

The affirmative must affirm the resolution (or at least purport to).