ABOUT ME

I debated in PF for Poly Prep in Brooklyn NY. I was pretty good.

FLOW NITPICKS

The second rebuttal should respond to all offense on the flow. I prefer second speaking teams also respond to terminal defense/overviews, but defense won't count as dropped until after summary.

Turns not extended into summary become defense, unless your opponent extends through it. In that case, it's offense again.

I don't flow author names. Refer to the arguments.

I default neg on BOP positive statement resolutions.

Overviews.

For second speaker teams; if your overview could easily have been a contention, I already hate it. When flowing on my laptop, I will literally not have a place to flow it - nor will I make one. Second rebuttal case turns should either a) respond within the framework debate or b) signpost to relevant links in case.

First speaking teams; go nuts.

Advocacies, Plans and Fiat Power In PF.

"I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine" - Caspar Arbeeny. Inherency is always better than fiat. Conditional advocacies are bad. "We kick out" never removes a turn, but speech time to de-link yourself from a turn can.

If you have any qualms, questions or concerns about my preferences, please do not hesitate to inform me. There is no penalty for trying to change the way I view debate.

Years debated : 4
Last POLICY debate – 2013
Judging HS Policy Debate since: 2012

I debated as a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. I have run all arguments but gravitate towards arguments that discuss race and gender, as these are important subjects to me. However, I appreciate a good straight "policy" debate and have no problem watching non-critical debates. Creative, logically presented and well executed arguments are ultimately easier and more enjoyable to watch than a debate lacking criteria for analysis, or a framework that allows both teams to state what they believe to be the truth without analysis or comparison.
I try to be a blank sheet and let you decide how I should vote, but I will naturally compare what you say to what I know or believe to be true. This means that if you say something I consider to be factually incorrect, it decreases your ethos. That does not mean that I don't think you can educate ME in a debate. I am mostly flow oriented in my decision making and do my absolute best not to vote you down for things the other team does not say. But, be detailed - my understanding of certain literature might allow me to understand the unstated intricacies an argument, but my lack of knowledge on another might mean that i do NOT catch the nuances of your argument the way you hope. Don't JUST use buzzwords. The best way to make sure I don’t intervene is to make sure I UNDERSTAND your argument, so EXPLAIN. This is particularly important on the micro level when debating PICs, ADV Cps, etc. 

I believe in looking at ways to solve problems at the micro and macro level. It's awesome to discuss the broder aspects, but you can use things that are inevitable for the greater good. In other words, you can fight the battle and the war. 

Warrant and compare your your arguments, close as many doors as you can in the debate. and be clear about it. Impact calc and internal link contestations and explanation are the key things i look at in determining who won.

I understand the idea of debate as a performance in multiple ways: 1) The debate space can allow for music, poetry, etc but as said above, please establish a framework or lens that allows me to determine why you should get the ballot, and why your debate is important, and why/how you meet that burden. 2) On a broader scale, switch side debate and changing what you argue is an example of performance in which you have to get someone else to believe with certainty what you are saying. Despite being flow oriented I expect to be convinced that your arguments are better than your opponent's, rather than making a decision based off technical issues.
I will be honest I hate theory debates (with the exception of topicality) only because I find them awful to flow and even more awful to evaluate the 16 sub points are often not fleshed out or compared in a way that offers a compelling conclusion. In this case, esp if the theory debate is shallow, I tend to err aff. I hate having that bias but my voting record speaks for itself.
I look to evidence for two reasons – to make sure the warrants you're extending are true and in cases where the debate isn’t fleshed out enough, to determine who is (more) correct in their analysis. 

I appreciate a lively debate in which people seem passionate, and love humor to alleviate the sometimes overly aggressive atmosphere in debates. Just some ideas if you are looking for ways to get good speaks with me.
As a general rule, I defer to an offense-defense paradigm, unless told otherwise.I think debate is GOOD, unless told otherwise.Debates should be fair and educational. You might want to tell me what "fairness" an "education" actually are, though.
Yes, speed is fine.
Yes, you can go to the bathroom. 
No, I will not be timing your speeches or prep.

The key for me when it comes to deciding most debates is two fold. First it is easier for me to vote for a team that weighs what is is being debated instead of just continuing to reiterate what their argument is. Well argued impacts are essential to choosing who is doing the better debating. I will look at the round objectively regardless of what I personally believe in almost every case so the way you frame your arguments and position them in the real world is very important to me.

Second, I think that since I am on the other side of the round, all I have to go on is what you're giving me; I will not do the work for you. In other words, if you make a really convincing argument in the first speech or in cross fire and you don't extend through the entire debate it or you let the other team take out the impacts without you addressing them, I can't just ignore that they're doing the better debating just because you may be right. I hope that makes sense.

As for me, I have a mostly policy background as a debater so I am good with spreading or k debate if you want to take it there, I have no real preference of specific arguments, i will hear whatever you say to me and weigh it as such. Just be respectful of everyone's space and time to speak, don't be an a**hole, and truly most importantly, have fun. I'm dead serious, if you're not having It'll just be a rough time for everyone, energies are tangible even over zoom.

I try not to intervene as much as possible. This means several things:

1. I will only factor things said in both summary and final focus into my decision. If it is mentioned in only one or not at all, I won't look at it.
2. The exception to the above rule is responses made in rebuttal that were not responded to in summary; i.e., you cannot extend through ink, even if it's some cheese.
3. The exception to the above rule is link turns/disads/any other offensive argumentation made in rebuttal. You have to extend offense.
4. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
5. Extensions must include warrants. Impact extensions won't give you any offense unless you extend links, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

I am very laid back judge, but here are a few things I would love to see:

1. Give me a roadmap; even something as simple as "it's going to be aff then neg" is greatly appreciated. If your speech is going to jump all over flow, be transparent about that at the top and signpost as you go. Overall, please be purposeful about signposting/claims and slow down for those statements. I need to be able to follow on the flow as this is the primary factor in my decision.

2. If anyone is using a framework, do NOT drop it post constructive or rebuttal. Once framework is introduced, how each side weighs into that throughout the round is crucial.

3. Utilize crossfire. Do not use that time to solely ask clarifying questions. Be offensive (even in the first cross), that's what we're here for. It's not going to win you the round, but it'll give the round depth.

4. FOR PF FIRST SPEAKERS SPECIFICALLY: The summary speech is the easiest way to win your round. Do NOT just merely extend every little thing your second speaker said; that's useless. Do NOT spend the entire time simply refuting your opponent's responses to your case. Give me a worlds/comparative analysis & weigh every impact. Defending your case can be integrated into these big picture analyses. This speech needs to only hone in on a handful of essential arguments. Be intentional with those two minutes.

5. Second speaking team, first speakers: if you want to dedicate some time in your constructive to rebuttal, DO IT. Keep the round entertaining.

6. Keep track of your prep time. I will also be keeping track, but you should be keeping track of each other as well.

7. If anyone is using hands off prep to get a piece of evidence, DO NOT PREP. I will down you.

8. Avoid blippy responses. I value the quality of your argument over the quantity.

9. If an argument seems to be a wash between opposing pieces of evidence, be prepared to show me the evidence at the end of the round.

10. I vote based on a combination of who won the flow, who outweighed, and who was the most intentional with their time.

If any of this is confusing, just ask me for clarification before the round! :)

Background:

4 years of national circuit public forum debate at Poly Prep Country Day School.

General Judging:

I vote entirely off the flow. Don't take this as license to speak really really fast to dump a ton of responses/contentions; my handwriting is pretty bad, so the faster you speak, the more you risk me not being able to decipher my own flow at the end of the round, which could be really bad for you. Honestly, I'd prefer that you give me lay speaking style with strong flow content; that is what is most persuasive to me and what will earn you pretty high speaker points. If you do decide to go fast, please signpost as much as possible so that I can follow you along on your rampage. You can give me an off time roadmap if you want but I don't really care. 

I will ultimately vote on the issues brought up by each team in final focus, but if it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus. The only exception I really have for this is with some extensions of defense from rebuttal. This is primarily intended to favor the first speaking team, because it's kind of abusive to force them to preemptively extend random defensive responses from the rebuttal without knowing what the second speaking team will actually go for. I'm less likely to accept the extension if it's made by the second speaking team in second FF, because you had the opportunity to make the extension in summary since you know what offense they went for. That being said, this isn't a rigid requirement and if the first speaking team is really extending through a significant amount of ink, then I won't need the second speaking team to do a whole lot of work to point that out to me (though they still should do some).  

If your opponents are not responding to any of the responses made in rebuttal, but you don't really point that out at all in the round, then it puts me in a gray area: as a matter of principle, I hate extensions through ink, but I also feel like it is some level of intervention on my part to extend defensive responses for a team that's not actually doing so themselves. You can avoid making me agonize over this dilemma by just doing a little bit of work in summary or final focus to extend the responses that have been dropped. 

I definitely don't need to hear a piece of evidence for every single response/argument that you make, especially not for framework/theory stuff. I really appreciate strong analytical responses in rebuttal. That being said, evidence can be very important in defining the scope/magnitude of your impacts and also providing credibility to your narrative as a whole; ultimately, though, I believe the purpose of evidence is to enhance your argumentation, not to build it for you. Having clear warrants for your arguments is extremely important for my comprehension as a judge. That doesn't mean you need to run stock arguments, that just means that with every argument you make, each step of the link story all the way up to the impact should be explained in a thorough, consistent manner that I can follow. 

Unless the round is a total facecrush, each team will probably have a few impacts left at the end of the round, so please do some comparative weighing between your impacts and your opponents' impacts. In my own career, I learned the hard way that if you do not weigh, you forfeit the right to complain about the way the judge's decision is made. In a round where a ton of impacts are left on the flow without weighing by either side, I will try to weigh in the way that requires the least amount of work from my perspective, which essentially means that I'll vote for whichever impacts seem like the most intuitive places to vote. That being said, this is entirely subjective; I'm a pretty weird guy, so don't depend on my decision making calculus to win you the round. 

Write my ballot for me in your final focus, and there shouldn't be any issues. 

Speaker Points:

What matters most to me is that you speak in clear, coherent sentences. As I've hinted at earlier, speed is not my favorite thing in the world; that being said, you won't lose speaker points for going fast so long as everything you say is clear and concise. Tossing in some cool rhetoric in your speech, being funny, and maintaining composure in crossfire are all good ways to get high speaker points out of me. I do not appreciate it if you are rude, violating evidence rules, or if you say something that is blatantly discriminatory/prejudiced, all of which are fast tracks to a 25 or below. 

Evidence/Theory: 

If the opposing team makes a claim that you are misconstruing a piece of evidence and you realize that they're right, drop it. If you continue to extend it, and the team asks me to call for it, I will. If they are right, your speaker points will likely take a hit and I will be more likely to look for ways to drop you when I'm deciding my ballot. If an evidence violation is REALLY bad, then I may just drop you entirely off of that alone. 

I believe in theory as a way to check back abuse in debate, which is why I think it should have a presence in public forum. Do not use it as a cheap copout to win rounds. My understanding of theory is limited due to the fact that my background is PF, so if you're making a theory argument, you have to explain it out pretty thoroughly. 

I do debate. I enjoy debate.
I will judge solely on the flow. 

PLEASE WEIGH.

You may go as fast as you want. 

Also will bump speaks if you bring me coffee. Black, por favor. 

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.