While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.