I don't have strong opinions. I enjoy seeing the pros and cons of all sides. 

• • • • • • • •

I am a high school English teacher: I teach AP English Language and Composition. Debate functions as an exceptional foundation for multiple, lifelong communicative capacities/realms. I value organization, solid understanding of one’s case, appropriate citation of relevant sources, and concise refutation of opposition. Regarding delivery, any speed is acceptable.

With an appreciation for the effort required in case preparation, I encourage debaters to deliver their cases with the same amount of gusto with which they prepared their cases. I acknowledge debate's intrinsic educational value; accordingly, I simultaneously judge and cheer as competitors engage in this fruitful, beneficial educational exercise.

A tabula rasa judge cloud is a lovely place to dream; however, a judge with a completely clean slate --void of previous experience and knowledge-- lacks benefit for all involved. Thus, I will do my best to safely tuck away any personal bias(es) as my function is to judge your debate skills, abilities, and effectiveness.

I am a progressive judge and I value evidence. An invalid argument will not be considered in my decision for a winner. I will decide based on the flow. Spewing is A-okay as long as I can catch your tag line. 

I am a traditional judge. All decisions are based on arguments that are presented. If either team takes time to argue about a certain contention more than another contention I will judge heavier on the contention that is argued the most. I will not judge anything unless it is clearly stated, meaning if I catch a flaw in the argument I will not put that into consideration unless it is pointed out to me by the opponent.

I debated policy for West High school and went on to coach for them, as well as becoming the dedicated policy coach at East High school. When I was in high school I was a k, framework, and theory debater. As long as an argument follows the proper structure, I don't care how crazy it is, go for it. Explain it well, however, I like to know what I'm getting when I sign a ballot. As for speed, if you sound like a garbage disposal chewing up a glass, I will just stop flowing.

If you have any specific questions feel more than free to ask them for the round, but I am lazy and don't feel like writing 20 paragraphs on what arguments I like.

i want parks and rec references. 

dont make bad arguments. 

I attempt to judge objectively. Do what you do best, I will try to leave predispositions at the door. It is not my position to tell you how or what to debate. Generally I think cases should be in the direction of the topic, instrumentality however is up for debate; just make sure you do a good job otherwise it could be a hindrance to you.

I am a philosophy major so the moral framework is very important. I want the framework spelled out. I don't want someone to tell me about the moral 'Ought' and end it there. Spell out that the moral 'Ought' is a form of Deontology stemming from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperitive, and that it tries to negate Utilitarianism. Just walk me throught the framework saying some choices are morally forbidden or some actions need to be preformed regardless of their concenquences. I like terms to be clairified. If a term is central to an arguement, then it better be defined. Ambigiuity is an issue.

The main point is the argument. Ethics and frame work is important to your argument. Make sure you explain your words like moral and justice - they are vague words so tighten them up and define them. Polish is important, but if the argument is weak I am not opposed to doing an occasional low point win. Arguments trump period.

I prefer more traditional LD debate including a strong Value/Criterion debate. I am willing to follow most debates competitors give. I prefer arguments that say something matters. It is not necessary however if you can make the other team or individual lose that works for me too. I think theory is best used strategically to make arguments or alts/cp's go away. I prefer more explanation over more flows and more evidence. I prefer better explanation over speed/number of cards.

I've also found myself more easily persuaded by empirics or historical examples. So if you could provide me with an explanation as to why X internal links are the same ones that caused a war in the past, you'll be ahead of a team that may have an impact scenario that is more "new" if that makes sense.

I do flow and like easy to follow debates. Don't bounce around. Signpost are important. Overall, I tend to focus heavily on the standards debate and overall trend of argumentation. I will rarely decide a round based on a minor dropped contention here or there. Just develop a sound argument, convince me that your standards are a better fit for the round, and speak confidently and with purpose.

It is better to go somewhat slow when speaking. I can keep up in most cases, but it is harder to flow. If I can't flow your argument it won't count. Not to mention many people sacrifice clarity for speed. If you want to try speed I will queue you in to nonverbal signs that state I can't understand your speed prior to the debate.
Be professorial. Attack the arguments, but don't attack the person. I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks or slippery slope arguments. I don't mind giving constructive criticism and perhaps adding a bit of brainstorming to help both teams improve. I love the activity and am always willing to give feedback and bounce ideas.