I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

Former intercollegiate debater. NDT qualifier. Do not have any prejudices against any specific arguments. Anything can win a round. Likewise anything can lose a round. Like to view the round from the outside which means I want you to apply the argument for me. Tell my WHY it means something and why it is impactful. Do not mind speed, but if it is unintelligible it does not make it to the flow and if it is not on the flow it does not count in round. Pretty much open to whatever you want to present.

Organization is absolutely necessary. If you want me to weigh your arguments appropriately then they need to be linked correctly, I.E. "in response to the #4 card/arg on DA "such n such" ....." then make your argument. If you can't keep your arguments well organized and linked then I may lose the point altogether.

Speak clearly if you want high speaker points.

I will vote on topicality and case structure (if not inherent the case will fail, if no mechanism for solvency the case will fail, etc). I will listen to a critical Aff case if it is well linked to the topic at hand but prefer topical cases with well proven inherency, a clear plan, etc.

I will vote on anything really if the argumentation is organized, consistent with other stances, and well impacted and crystallized. But I prefer policy debates to philosophical debates.

Experience: 2yrs HS debater for Cherokee HS.  4yrs Collegient debater for NOC-Tonkawa and Ferris State University.  This is my 6th year to coach HS debate: 5yrs at Cherokee, 1yr at Trinity Academy Wichita KS.

Judging Paradigm: Have no problem with speed reading, although I do use audience presentation to evaluate speaker points/ranks (not necessarily argument effectiveness and/or creativity).  Generally, I use stock issues, specifically harms, solvency and of course, topicality to make a policy-maker decision in most rounds.  I am not opposed to K AFFs so long as the alternative is a policy that could be deployed in the real world (or even a hypothetical world).  I'm somewhat more lenient on NEG K alt's, although I dislike generic alt's like "reject the aff" or "anything but X".  I'd prefer alt's that lend to solvency clash compared to these generic alt's.  I'll listen to T, but dislike it being run as a time-suck.  I'll listen to generic DAs.  I'll listen to CPs:  I'd prefer non-T CPs but T CPs are okay as long as they solve for AFF harms and are competitive.  I'll listen to framework and theory arguments.

If further questions exist of how I evalute rounds, beyond this paradigm, ask me!  I like to think I'm approachable, and I enjoy discussing policy debate.

"Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift."

I think the structural ins-and-outs of debate arguments are very important foundations that the activity and the debate round specifically require to function properly. But, I err on the side of reasonability. I tend to treat theory args as checks rather than round-deciders, and as such it is very difficult to get me to vote on hypothetical abuse. If you want to win the ballot *on* theory/topicality, you need to show me how you were abused *in this round*. Otherwise, if a team passes the theory/topicality check, then we move on to other arguments.

I think Framework is a complicated issue. On one hand, it’s a check for policy-leaning teams to prevent abusive K args from the neg and a right to define how you want the round and ballot act to be seen, but more often I see it used as an attempt to abuse neg ground by somehow removing their ability to kritik altogether. In practice, the stronger argument and legitimate, warranted crystallization will win my ballot.

I’m okay with speed, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost. This means *don't* speed through tags!!! Please just pause/vary your tone when switching between tags and evidence. I’m able to come back to judge at most 3 times a year, so it takes some energy to “knock the rust off” my ears and my flowing abilities.

I find really good policy rounds a thing of beauty, when there’s CLASH and real discussion between competing arguments and evidence. It shouldn't make a difference what the subject of those discussions is.

Ultimately, if what you really want to think and speak on in your time in this activity is the granular interactions between congress and the president or how likely nuclear war is, then I think you should be able to; but I also think that if the other team wants to spend their time in this activity speaking on issues that affect them in the real world, they should be able to find a way inside the boundaries of the debate “game” to do so without being punished.

Here’s a paradox: you can be behind on every single flow and still win the ballot, or ahead on every single flow and still lose the ballot. What’s important to me is that you tell me a compelling story at the end of the round, and not just repeat taglines and “extend x”; that you crystallize and have warranted reasons for why I should vote for you; and, above all, that you are clearest in telling me what the ballot means or what my act of voting accomplishes.

I will do my best at the end of the round to objectively decide "who did the better debating", but it's up to you as debaters to tell me what those words mean in the round you're in.