I am a teacher with 28 years of teaching experience with a master's degree but not in political science. I am a lay judge but I have been judging since 2015.

Please don't talk so fast that I can't follow you. If I can't follow you, I can't vote for you. No off time road maps. Everything is timed because I am the official time keeper. Feel free to time yourself but my time is the only time.

Please be clear and precise in your presentation. Be respectful and not condescending. Build your case, tell your story because I am looking for the thread that binds your case, your crossfire, summary and final focus together.

During your rebuttals be respectful and not condescending. Make sure to don't just attack the others but also defend your case.

During your summary restate the facts and clearly address any misunderstandings.

During your Final Focus make me want to vote for you!

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

Throughout all styles of debate, clarity and clash are important to me. I need to understand what you're saying all the time. While I'm okay with some spreading, make sure you elaborate on which points you're attacking/defending if you decide to jump around. Also, I teach math. I deal with enough tangents throughout the school year. You can attack contentions with all sorts of wild card examples all you want, but you NEED to attack the structure of the case as well, be it a value, a plan, a model, etc.

I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I can only write so fast. Pace yourself properly, and have fun with it!

For LD -- still very new at this.  I'm a "community" judge.  I do believe that even though LD is a debate event, the power of persuasion in your delivery shouldn't be ignored.  My ears are not trained to follow a policy case read at 100 mph.....so, with me (especially on the AFF) to remember that "more" is not necessarily "better".  Have a solid case, drive your points home, and for both parties.....LISTEN to your opponent, and if they open a hole in their argument, I expect you to go for it....failure to do so, tends to make me feel as if you weren't listening.  

For Speech events  -- 

• Competed 4 years in High School.  3-time National Qualifier....'
• Competed 1 year on the College Circuit 
• 3 daughters -- all multi-national qualifiers....

• HI -- I hate "cartoon" pieces.....don't find them funny.  I love something well written, delivered by someone that understands the lines, and gets the humor.  If your funniest line is in your Intro -- that's usually a sign your piece isn't that funny.
• DI -- Loud doesn't always equal - emotion.  I prefer pieces that build...that keep me interested...and that have a "moment".... Pieces that take 7-8 minutes to get interesting -- are usually hard to judge....because you tend to lose the audience.
• OI -- OI is supposed to be a torso-up event.  If you are treating OI as DI with a book -- I'm going to mark you down for it.... 
• OO -- It's a speaking event....not a "Term Paper on Tape" -- Keep it interesting/entertaining....
• DEC -- give me a little emotion -- but not too much....
• POI -- Love the event -- impress me.....you have the ability to use the book as a prop, and you have the ability to move -- again, not too much -- but show me something I've not seen before....
• Finally -- for the Interp Events (including DUO/DUET) -- "Literary Merit" means something to me.  Junior High quality pieces should be marked down. Intentionally adding something that's not in the piece or intentionally misinterpreting the author's intent -- should be marked down as well.

Respect your competition.  Phones off.  No talking during the round.  Unless you are cross-entered, you should watch the entire round.  I have watched many enter, perform, and then leave -- not because they are crossed, but because they feel as if they are too good to watch the competition.  I believe your ability to be professional -- is just as important as many other parts of your performance.....

Happy Speeching -- 

I am a speech and debate teacher/coach at Christ Episcopal High School. I have a Ph.D. in Theatre Literature, Criticism and History with a minor in Communications and intense study of Rhetoric.

I have been a high school speech and debate coach since 2014.

My preferences are:

* respectful discourse-if you are rude-you loose speaker points

* Obvious: looking for sound logic, claims supported with credible evidence

* looking for clash and effective use of time

* I like clear weighing

* good communication skills with judge --no spreading. If I can't understand you I won't be able to flow your case-we can negotiate a signal you prefer when you have lost me.

* I don't like email chains for LD or PF which I consider Oral mode of debate and not written- email chains are also time inefficient--(this means you must actually speak in a way that a speaker of the language could mostly understand you. Incoherency is not very persuasive.)

* I am oriented towards substantive LD debate and do not prefer Theory case in LD because to run it efficiently takes the time you need for Policy rounds-If you run Theory then be sure to use your time efficiently

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus unwarranted ideas or ill-linked impacts.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

PF Argumentation:

I expect PF to be a lay debate. I'm not impressed by the use of debate jargon in rounds and jargon isn't sufficient for arguments. That being said, evidence matters. I expect responses to counterarguments that opponents make, not just pretending they aren’t there and reasserting your initial claims. I don't flow crossfire, but that doesn't mean I'm not listening to it.

LD Argumentation:

I most appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. If fallacies are offered by your opponent and you feel the need to deal with them, do so by pointing out the fault in the logic rather than naming the fallacy.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches. Tell me your assessment of the round and enumerate the reasons you are winning.

I probably lean "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. I can appreciate some Kritik arguments, but I don't really enjoy listening to theory heavy arguments. I'm probably not going to vote on theory unless a debater is being overly abusive.

Value/Value Criterion/Framework - If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

Burdens – Do not try to establish an abusive burden that does not give your opponent any opportunity to win. I will drop you for this.

Sing Posting – Please sign-post so that I know where you are in the flow. Do not just use author’s names to extend arguments. (ie: extend Jones).

Speed - If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery and clear argumentation.

Timing – I expect you to keep your own time. Please do not ask for time signals.

Respect – I expect you to be respectful to both your opponent and your judge. Rudeness will cost you speaker points.

LD-

Speed- Medium to medium-fast (If speed gets in the way of speaking style, I'm not a fan. I don't like fast for the sake of fast). I will judge progressive style arguments if that's what's presented, but it's not my favorite.

Framework- May possibly be a voting factor depending on its use in the round, but not always. Voting issues- fine to use, but I'll only vote on them if I agree debater won the argument.

Speaking style/evidence/argumentation- all important!!

Policy- Speed- Medium to medium-fast. I will listen to spreading and it doesn't bother me as long as it's clear. I can handle K and Theory.

Policy Maker/ Stock Issues

Only vote on Topicality if Aff is highly off-topic or a squirrel case.

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.

I am open to nearly any argumentation that you can come up with as long as you have evidence and good rhetoric to back it up. I am okay with speaking fast, but do not spread. If I cannot understand you because you are speaking too fast I will stop flowing. Please be cordial in rounds, and while I love passion in a debate if you are flat out rude it will show on the ballot.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

I like clear argumentation and signposting, and I ask that you guys do not spread. Timing is very important to me, please time yourselves and when the time is over, I will drop my pen and stop flowing. Do not take too long to flash, as it eats up time and puts the tournament behind. Emphasize stock issues, and give me clear reasoning for why your team wins them. Stocks play a huge role in my weighing of the round.

I expect professional, respectful behavior throughout the rounds. Spreading is not encouraged. If I can not understand your content, I cannot adequately judge your arguments. I value credibly sourced evidence & logical presentation. Thank you. I look forward to judging.

I am a judge who willingly judges PF, LD, and World Schools debate. I competed in Policy debate many years ago in both high school and college, finishing third in the nation in CEDA debate when that event was still popular. As a coach, I have moved away from Policy debate with it's emphasis on speed and evidence wars over well-reasoned arguments. This affects my view of other debate events as I am quite completely opposed to the infusion of policy debate techniques, such as critiques, into other forms of debate. I do recognize that Public Forum is often fast and evidence heavy and I have no concerns with either the speed or the amount evidence as long as it supports credible arguments. In LD, I am more of a tradionalist who expects value clash and strong case argumentation at a reasonable speed. I enjoy World Schools precisely because this style of debate also places a premium on organization, argumentation, and rhetoric.

As a critic, I am stricly Tabula Rasa when it comes to the arguments themselves; meaning I will only consider arguments the debaters make in round and will not interject my own philosophical or policy paradigms into a round. I am a flow judge who decides votes in favor of the debater(s) who do the best job on convincing me that their arguments should carry the round based on the relative strength of their evidence, reasoning, and argumentation. I NEVER award low point wins. If you didn't do the better job while debating, you will not win my ballot.

Three notes are worth mentioning on procedure. Most importantly, I am entirely opposed to the tendency of some TOC judges to dictate PF strategy by declaring frontlining and other optional techniques as requirements to earn their vote. There are other ways to structure your approach to the round and I encourage students to debate the style that best suits them! Second, I only allow evidence requests during CX/Crossfire. Evidence requests made during prep time will be discouraged. Third, please remember to be polite and try not talk over one another during Crossfire. All speakers deserve a chance to be heard.

I am a judge who willingly judges PF, LD, and World Schools debate. I competed in Policy debate many years ago in both high school and college, finishing third in the nation in CEDA debate when that event was still popular. As a coach, I have moved away from Policy debate with it's emphasis on speed and evidence wars over well-reasoned arguments. This affects my view of other debate events as I am quite completely opposed to the infusion of policy debate techniques, such as critiques, into other forms of debate. I do recognize that Public Forum is often fast and evidence heavy and I have no concerns with either the speed or the amount evidence as long as it supports credible arguments. In LD, I am more of a tradionalist who expects value clash and strong case argumentation at a reasonable speed. I enjoy World Schools precisely because this style of debate also places a premium on organization, argumentation, and rhetoric.

As a critic, I am stricly Tabula Rasa when it comes to the arguments themselves; meaning I will only consider arguments the debaters make in round and will not interject my own philosophical or policy paradigms into a round. I am a flow judge who decides votes in favor of the debater(s) who do the best job on convincing me that their arguments should carry the round based on the relative strength of their evidence, reasoning, and argumentation. I NEVER award low point wins. If you didn't do the better job while debating, you will not win my ballot.

Three notes are worth mentioning on procedure. Most importantly, I am entirely opposed to the tendency of some TOC judges to dictate PF strategy by declaring frontlining and other optional techniques as requirements to earn their vote. There are other ways to structure your approach to the round and I encourage students to debate the style that best suits them! Second, I only allow evidence requests during CX/Crossfire. Evidence requests made during prep time will be discouraged. Third, please remember to be polite and try not talk over one another during Crossfire. All speakers deserve a chance to be heard.