I am not inclined to judge circuit policy and LD. I debated policy in high school and parli in college. I do not enjoy spreading. I am wide open to a variety of arguments. If teams want to debate theory, that's fine. If they want to argue for an unpopular argument, that's fine. I try to keep the round about the round and not about my own private views. Thus, the round should be cleaned up by the end of the last speeches. Make it clear what the voters are and why I should give you the win. 

I am not inclined to judge circuit policy and LD. I debated policy in high school and parli in college. I do not enjoy spreading. I am wide open to a variety of arguments. If teams want to debate theory, that's fine. If they want to argue for an unpopular argument, that's fine. I try to keep the round about the round and not about my own private views. Thus, the round should be cleaned up by the end of the last speeches. Make it clear what the voters are and why I should give you the win. 

I debated four years of Policy at Claremont High School (2008-2012), and have been an intermittent assistant coach for all forms of debate since then. While I am comfortable with pretty much whatever styles, forms, or arguments you would like to run, I do not regularly judge each year and may not know all the resolution-specific acronyms or plans or strategies; be mindful of your topic jargon. Speed is not an issue, but only if you are CLEAR. I value good signposting; if I cannot follow your argument, it does not exist on my flow.

I generally prefer Policy strats over K strats. This is not to say I will not vote for K arguments, but my threshold for rendering such a decision is somewhat higher. Please clearly link your arguments and firmly/clearly establish your framework, and we'll all have a good round. This also goes for theory: prove there is substantial in-round abuse that warrants your running a theory argument. Nothing is more dissatisfying than finding out the theory is just a timesuck (especially Topicality). Consequently, I tend to prefer substantive debates over theoretical debates.

Concerning China: I would like to believe that I am better read on China than most debaters and other judges. If you read cards by Gregory Kulacki in my round, know that I likely have the original article and probably know whether you're cherry-picking my father's arguments or not.

Concerning In-Round Protocol: Tag-team CX is fine. I count flashing evidence as both teams' prep time if it takes longer than one minute. I highly value courtesy in- and out-of-round; your perceived skill or victory over your opponents is no warrant for toxic behavior.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose but If you want a good oral critique, then be willing to get roasted.

In the round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.
• Don’t extend through ink.
• I only weigh arguments in the final focus if they were also in your summary.
• Don’t go for everything past the rebuttal. Employ strategic issue selection and tell me what the important voters are and why you are winning them.

 Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive (kritiks, theory, etc.) do it right, don’t butcher it, and stick to the procedurals.
• Framework is not an essential part of public forum. That being said if you choose to read a framework, utilize it because I will vote off it.

Delivery:

• I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is NOT an invitation to be rude which I have no tolerance for.
• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I don’t flow cross so don’t get upset if I’m not writing while you and your opponent compete to talk over each other. This means that if you want me to account for an argument, you need to bring it up in a speech.

I am the parent of a debater and have judged at various tournaments.

general

- please do not spread — I won’t be able to understand you

- I am more persuaded by practical approaches to the resolution

- debate is still a communicative activity so you’ll be well served to persuading me as opposed to getting caught up in the technical aspects of the debate that I don’t really understand

- seem like you’re having fun