I am a debate coach who has judged all types of debate for nearly 30 years. In recent years, I have focused mainly on public forum and occasionally Lincoln Douglas.

When judging public forum, I adopt the point of view of someone who is conversant in basic terminology and concepts but without any preconceived opinions on the merits of the resolution. The team that is more effective in using evidence and argumentation to convince me that their side should prevail gets the win.

I value clarity and precision in argumentation. While I can flow and comprehend more rapid delivery (I have coached policy), I think that public forum is not well suited to speed. If you are speaking rapidly because there is a lot you really need to cover, I am ok with that. If you are speaking rapidly because you feel it will confuse the other team, I will be annoyed. If you are speaking rapidly because you think it will impress me, it will not.

Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?

The summary is an important speech because it tells me how your side sees the entire round now that constructives and rebuttals are on the flow. The final focus is best spent weighing the round and telling me why your side prevails.

Crossfires are not speeches, so anything from a crossfire that you want on the flow must still be mentioned in a subsequent speech. However, I listen carefully to all crossfires, so I will be aware of whether their contents are being accurately characterized.

In Lincoln-Douglas, I prefer clarity and quality over speed and quantity. I appreciate direct refutation and line by line analysis. My preference is for a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of the resolution. If given a choice, I would like a round that had fewer but better arguments rather than a spread of arguments that all lack decent development.

I do value the traditional role of LD as the more philosophical type of debate, and the value and value criterion play a unique and helpful role in this. However, I am mindful of the fact that not all resolutions lend themselves to this tradition as well as others do, so I am ok with making adjustments accordingly. If I don't feel I've been given clear reasons why I should vote the way you want me to, I will tend to default to a traditional approach, so having the value and value criterion in place still serves a purpose.

Evidence is important in LD to back up your basic claims, but I'd rather have you give me a couple great cards along with excellent analysis then many cards without it.

In your last speech, please make it very clear to me why I should be convinced by what is on the flow to vote for your side.

I look forward to hearing you debate!

Ehrlich, Miranda

About me: I debated policy in college for four years at the University of Minnesota and was a semi-finalist at the NDT in 2015. While I have many years of experience judging and coaching policy debate, it's been several years since I've judged at a tournament, and the Wisconsin State Debate Tournament is my first time judging online debate. These are also the first rounds I am judging on this topic, so please err on the side of more explanation of acronyms, key concepts, etc.

Couple of top-level comments:

--Dropped arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication – “perm do both” without an explanation of how it solves the net benefit is not a winning argument

--Impact calc is extremely important, but underutilized

--Clarity in speaking is important to me. Please strive to be comprehensible on both tags and card text!

Some specifics:

Disads – The more specific, the better, but if politics is your primary strategy, I’m a perfectly fine judge for you.

Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor international object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between.

Kritiks – Can be a viable strategy in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically to all portions of the case. I would highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”. I also like K affs that are topical, defend a real-world impact, and critique disads – especially if you can point out why the disad is contrived and silly, which it likely is. Generic postmodern K’s, on the other hand – not my cup of tea, and I’m not familiar with the lit base. On many popular K's, the link seems to be "you don't solve enough" rather than "you actively do something bad". If you can't figure out a way to phrase your link as offense and impact it, you will have a hard time winning my ballot.

Non-traditional – It is important to me that the aff explains how they solve the harms that are presented. If they fail to do this, I can be persuaded by presumption. I am skeptical of the "you don't get a perm in a method debate" argument, but could see myself voting for it if debated poorly by the other team or debated exceptionally well by the negative. Affs should be aware that I generally find a well-debated framework argument to be persuasive. When I vote against framework, it is usually because the aff convinces me that they either have a) out-teched the other team or b) that the neg has mishandled a fundamental thesis claim of the aff that interacts with framework. When I vote for framework, it is usually because the neg has both won some offense (usually with an internal link based on predictable limits) and also mitigated the case by explaining how framework can resolve it (such as T version of the aff) or through case-specific defense.

Theory – I generally think conditionality is good, but I can be persuaded to vote on it, especially if the neg has read 3+ conditional advocacies. I do, however, think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps or argue for judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so. Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Other - I will not vote for arguments that are blatantly morally reprehensible, such as racism good, sexism good, genocide good, etc.

I'm a first-year judge without a debate background but have been certified in judging Forensics since 2017. I'll flow whatever you tell me to, so make everything explicit. I love good clash, so make sure your answers to your opponents are pertinent. Not the biggest fan of speed. I give top speaks to those who I see as strong and assertive in-round.

1. WEIGH

2. Weigh some more.

3. Weigh for a third time.

4. Be nice

5. Have fun

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

Background:

Im a judge for West Bend (WI), but have judged for Brookfield East (WI). I was a PF'r in high school @West Bend West (13'-17'). I've judged LD and PF since graduating 2017-2019, 2021- .

General Judging Style:

I care the most about how courteous you are as a debater.

You could be "winning" the round, but if you are rude to your opponent(s) you will not earn my ballot. Debate is meant to mould you into an effective speaker and thinker, not a bully. I am a simple judge, I like a round with meaningful clash, get into the meat of your arguments. I prefer debates that are more substantive than structural, don't dwell on how your opponent debates but rather the what and why of their position.

I LIKE VOTERS, FRAMEWORK, and clear IMPACT calculus. (for both LD and PF, the language changes for each style, but the principle is the same)

LD: Your value (V) should be clear and consistent throughout the round, this is the framework I use to judge the round. Your value criterion(VC) ought to give significant context to your V and should help me measure the significance of your argument. LD should be a social theory based debate paired with real examples and evidence. I like clash, especially withV/VC. Outline why your value achieves the more desirable "world". Weigh opposing evidence and arguments through your VC and tell me the impacts of each side. End the round with voters. AFF(R2) should have no new arguments.

No (counter)plans or kitricks.

PF: Give me a framework to judge the round. I like clash, especially with framework. Outline why you achieve the more desirable "world". Weigh opposing evidence and arguments through your framework and contentions, tell me the impacts of each side. End the round with voters. Summary should collapse the round and close in on the main themes of the debate. Final Focus should be voters.

No (counter)plans.

CROSSFIRE I do not flow cx, but I am listening. If something important happens during cx that you want on my flow, bring it up in your next speech.

FEEDBACK I try my best to give constructive feedback on the ballots. I don't give verbal feedback if the tournament is running behind schedule, but if there is time, please feel free to ask!

Speaking:

SPEED: I only flow what I can hear, diction and emphasis are important. I stop flowing after the timer, unless it's finishing a sentence, or something reasonable. Clear and concise > speed.

SIGN POSTING/ROADMAPPING: Roadmapping is an outline or thesis statement for your next speech. Off-time roadmaps will be allowed if they are quick and helpful.

DO: "Hey judge in this next speech I am going to have 3 attacks against their C1, I am going to weigh out this debate on X vs. X, and I will finish with 4 main points from my case"

DON'T: "I am going to attack their case, and if time allows, defend my own"

In-speech SIGN POSTING is directing me to specific parts of the flow or giving me taglines for arguments/voters.

DEBATE LINGO: Please define slang/abbreviations at the top of your case so I can follow/and am on the same page as you.

EVIDENCE: Please give tag-lines each time you bring up a card, "Miller 2020" loses its meaning over the debate amid all the other evidence if you don't give little reminders in speech. Ex. "Miller 2020, which tells us that X is true".

SPEAKER POINTS: I deduct heavily if debaters are rude to one another; such as arguing outside of the debate, being condescending/aggressive/ or belittling. Just be courteous!

REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN AND BREATHE :)

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Background: I have a bachelor's degree in English education and have been teaching language arts at Sheboygan North High School for 20 years. I have coached debaters in policy, Lincoln-Douglass and public forum for 17 years, including multiple state champions. My school's emphasis is on public forum.

It is best if you think about me as a fairly well-informed member of the public to get my ballot.

As far as public forum, I appreciate being given a clear framework to weigh the impacts and other voters in the round.

Debate is an activity of communication, and speed is not effective communication. Public forum is about persuading the average American voter that your stance on the resolution is the best one.

All judges, coaches and debaters who promote speed/spread should reflect on the damage it is doing to the accessibility of the activity to prospective debaters and schools wishing to start a debate program. More skill is demonstrated by honing your arguments down to the point that they can be effectively presented in the allotted speech time rather than racing through myriad of contentions that are under-developed. Speed is not progressive; it is destroying this valuable activity.

That stated, I will listen to any arguments debaters wish to run and the speed at which they choose to speak them, even if that is not how anyone anywhere else ever speaks.

Clash is good.

Adjusting to the judge is good.

Extending your arguments with evidence and not just analytical arguments is good...but analytical arguments are also good.

I believe the rebuttals are often pivotal speeches in the entire round. I reward good ones and blame bad ones for losses, often.

Finally, despite what some public forum judges may tell you, it is not possible, in my mind, to drop arguments in pf. If it was stated, it's on my flow. You don't have to go over every single argument in every single speech for me to continue to consider it. But if an opponent fails to address a key idea, certainly point that out.

Background:

I did not debate while I was in high school. However, I have been judging LD and PF for the past 5 years.

Speed:

Speed really only belongs on a race track. I find it unnecessary and unproductive. I feel it really takes away from one's ability to a persuasive speaker. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Analysis:

I like analysis; don't just read to me. Show me that you understand how that evidence supports your argument. Explain why I should care about the evidence you present. Your evidence should also be cited and from a reputable source.

Cross-examination (and Crossfires):

This is a time for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to criticize them, and try to prove your superiority. (This is the purpose for your allotted speech times.) I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:

I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and why I should vote on them.

Disclosure/ Ending Comments:

I do not give oral comments after the round. All my comments that I have for you (or your team) will be given on the ballot.

Tl;dr

• Strike me if you're a relatively inexperienced "circuit" debater who is trying to debate in a "circuit" style: i.e. spreading for its own sake, running theory because you haven't researched enough case material, etc. Pref me highly if you are not such a debater or if you come from a traditional circuit and expect to be debating a value and value criterion (by no means am I saying you must have those things). Pref me in the middle if you are an experienced debater who truly understands when using certain strategies is important and you're not just reading me what a coach/teammate told you to run.
• On spread--I can flow spread just fine; however, I don't like spread when it is used as a barrier for discourse. If you and your opponent are comfortable with spread (defined as 250 wpm or above) then go for it. Speak loudly and clearly and I'll be fine. If not, if your opponent can't flow spread, please do not spread. If your opponent can't respond to your arguments simply because you're speaking too fast then it is your fault, not hers. You won't lose the round for it but your speaker points will suffer.
• On arguments--run whatever you think is most effective. However, know that I don't really like Topicality as a response. I have judged an awful lot of debate and can count on two fingers how many arguments have truly been nontopical. Usually, T is run against arguments that debaters don't otherwise know how to respond to and I don't like that. You are welcome to tell me a nontopical argument is nontopical but please also engage the substance of the argument.
• On evidence--I believe this to be a community of integrity. There are individuals who will do shoddy things and we should discourage that but there are others who call falsification without proof as a strategy. Both are bad. THE MOMENT I HEAR "FALSIFICATION" THE ROUND STOPS. I evaluate the evidence and award a loss to the debater/team that was wrong. If you're calling clipping, calling falsification, etc, prove it. The burden of proof I'll use is not a steep one but it needs to show misrepresentation. I'm not encouraging falsification nor am I discouraging calling it; however, those are tall accusations and it is your burden to prove it.
• I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, or Dumbfoundead reference and I'll smile and be happy with you and might give you an extra speaker point.

The rest of this paradigm is a verbose discussion of my thoughts on the activity to which I've dedicated much of my life for the past eight years.

Background:
Assistant Coach of Forensics and Debate at Brookfield East High School. Previously coached at Whitefish Bay High School. Competed in Wisconsin and nationally in Congressional Debate and in Public Forum debate with Brookfield East (class of ’12). I have a bachelor's degree from Marquette University in Milwaukee, majoring in Political Science (concentration in public policy/political economy) and Economics (analysis in international trade, econometrics, and public finance/policy evaluation) with a minor in Spanish. I'm a nerd for the studies and empirical research. In real life, I run a restaurant and small investment firm with differentiated subsidiaries.

I judge almost every weekend from September through March and am well versed on the topic literature as I research and cut cards with my team. I coach PF and LD as well as Congressional Debate (and IE’s in the spring) so I read lots and lots of evidence.

Value/Criterion:
I'm extremely progressive on this topic. I feel that the debate is ultimately decided in the metaphysical realm and there are generally few empirics you can run strongly on the topic. Give me something to chew on here, more than usual. I think a lot of the debate is going to be framework and theory. I will accept Anti-values, Standards, et cetera, instead of a traditional V/VC structure. You can advocate a standard-less debate as well as long as you give me good theory to back it up.

Definitions Debate:
I will only vote on a definition if it goes dropped and really does redefine the debate in a way that I can only vote for one side. That being said, if you present me a really shady definition that defines it so that the Aff/Neg has no chance of winning the round and your opponent provides a legitimate and fair definition in response I, as a judge, am always going to favor the definition that provides equality to the grounds of both sides. This shouldn’t have to be said but I will always prefer a term of art definition to Webster’s even if the dictionary is the only card presented. I am a word nerd; please don't BS me in the definitions debate.

I generally don't like verbose discussions of framer's intent with resolutions. I'm intimately familiar with how these resolutions are actually written--don't try to run ridiculous things on these grounds.

Types of Arguments:
I will accept any type of argumentation you throw at me as long as it's well argued with warrants and impacts. You can kritik the resolution; read me poetry that helps me better understand the plight of the needy; K the opponents case or his language; run a narrative alternative; run a priori reasons to negate; or tell me my ballot is a tool and I should vote for you for some obscure yet well argued reason. I personally believe that good argument is good argument—if you give me reasons why it should be the voting issue in the round I will vote on it. That said, if you provide an argument that requires me to accept something completely non sequitur with reality, I will reject it. In other words, if you tell me I should affirm because there are only 49 states and that is a prime number, I won't vote on it because, well, there aren't and it’s not. Otherwise, I don't intervene.

I can follow complex philosophy pretty easily but you shouldn’t assume anything and take shortcuts here, as I’m nowhere near as proficient as I’d like to be. I love philosophy; I’ve read a lot on many subjects and can follow along with sound analysis; however, it's bad form to assume that your opponent will be familiar with your concepts. Debaters should generally subscribe to the ELI5 method. That is to say, if you can’t explain your argument to a five year old, you don’t fully understand the concepts yourself. I will vote on theory but please explain why voting on theory should trump case evaluation.

Extending arguments is important; however, telling me to "extend contention 2--it went cold conceded" is far less effective than summarizing the argument and presenting it as a round issue. Same goes with cards. "Extend the Coase analysis" is valid but less effective than explaining it to me again so I know why it's important.

I've developed a slight disdain for plans over time as they present an infinite research burden but will still vote on them.

Evidence:
People who say evidence doesn’t belong in LD are, for some reason, clinging to the archaic as a means to bring the activity towards where they think it should be rather than allowing it to grow organically. Use evidence if it's necessary for your argument. I’ll buy sound analysis over a shoddy card any day but you should back things up with research. My thoughts on this are developing over time as I watch more rounds. Really, I appreciate the debaters who make sound arguments that are based in analysis over those who rely on their evidence to analyze things--it shows a better understanding of the issues. However, reading me cards without analyzing them yourself is the equivalent of saying nothing. Signpost then analyze the evidence—tell me why I should care about what the author is saying—why does it impact the debate?

I’ve never had to ask for a card before but will if I have to. Don’t clip cards. This is a community of integrity—keep it that way. I generally won’t vote on cards; I vote on arguments. I don’t really care whether a Ph.D said it… if it’s sound, I’ll buy it and if it’s not, I won’t. To be clear, I expect more than regurgitation or carpet-bombing.

I need adequate citations. Name is usually enough if they’re not claiming anything weird but sometimes it’s best to hear a few words on the credentials too. If you’re citing an analysis of Rawls or Kant, name-drop the master so I know what’s going on, please.

Delivery:
I can flow pretty quickly and can handle “debate speed” but don’t want to hear much more. This is more a philosophical issue than anything else—I generally will pick up a spreader 50% of the time, as they tend not to make any more, or better, arguments than a non-spreader. Quality will always beat quantity. As this is a communication event, don’t forget that you have to communicate your arguments so that I may understand them. I'll yell at you if I can't hear/understand what you're saying, of course.
I like signposting; it enhances the debate. You have to tell me where things go on my flow if you expect me to write them down. If you’re giving an overview, tell me. If you’re starting with the second contention and then coming back to the first for some cockamamie reason, tell me.
SPEAK LOUDLY
As a general rule, if I’m looking back at you in a speech (not in CX) you’re likely not saying anything worth writing down. If you read me a canned 1AR that has nothing to do with the opponent’s case, I’ll read the posters in the room or count down the seconds on my timer until the time-wasting has completed. I like clash and debating, if you haven’t noticed.

Decorum:
I don’t care whether you sit, stand, or lay on the table when you debate. Do what makes you comfortable. If that means taking off your jacket because it’s hot—go for it. Take off the heels—I don’t care.
Be nice. I get that things get heated—I was a debater too. I get it. Not much more to say here. However, if you are disrespectful it will reflect in your speaker points. There’s a fine line between assertive and jerk. I’m liberal here but have seen many rounds get out of hand. As a general rule, treat others the way you want to be treated: respectfully.

Voters:
Give them to me. If you don't, I will intervene strangely and vote in ways you won't like. Tell me how to vote. This is your round and not mine. You don't have to give them all at once, but if they aren't given I am left without a methodology to adjudicate things

Weighing:
Please weigh your impacts. If you tell me that I should vote aff for puppies, and I should vote neg for kitties, I'll be happy you've given me voters but lost on how I'm supposed to weigh them—link back through your criterion or make sure I understand there are real world impacts outside the resolution. If you're still reading this exceedingly long thing you are an excellent human and probably already know how to weigh impacts. 

Speaker Points:
I used to be a stickler about them but have seen the trend of inflation coming. With their use as a common tiebreaker, I’ve become a sort of point fairy. However, there is a scale. I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, Dumbfoundead, et cetera, reference and I might have to give you an extra point or two.
30) Excellent, passionate and engaging performance. Not uncommon but hard to attain. Argumentatively speaking, not much else you could have done better. I’m impressed. Most likely on par with the best thing I’ll see in the tournament; you deserve a speaker award.
29) Sound arguments and leadership in the discussion. Not much to improve in the way of argumentation. I’m impressed. Much more common that 30’s. You've taken the time to read your judge's paradigm--bravo to you for doing what I try to get my kids to do--you'll do fine with points.
28) Great job with the argumentation. Good delivery and good leadership. You did all that was expected of an experienced debater.
27) Great job with the arguments but you likely lost the round because of something here. You did all that was expected of a good debater.
26) You could have done more with the argumentation. You likely dropped something or committed a logical fallacy or two. Competent delivery.
24) Argumentation was deficient in some way. Delivery was likely lacking in poise.
23) You’re likely out of your league and still learning. That’s still good though—learn from our mistakes. Few refutations made and delivery was lacking. Usually didn’t fully utilize time given
20) Equally as common as 30’s. I give these because they’re usually the lowest I’m allowed to go. Only given when there’s misconduct of some sort. I’ll note on the ballot what you did to irk me.

Debate Experience: Graduated 2017; 4 years of PF debate(mainly circuit) for James Madison Memorial High School - Did ok

1) Clean extensions - This means responding to every response on your relevant offense in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts fully eg: If you say the tagline or a card name - I will not flow it for you; you must explain the argument behind the tagline or card name.

2) Weighing- Weighing is the first thing I evaluate at the end of the round. Tell me where I should vote

3) Summaries and Final Focus - You can extend defense directly from first rebuttal to first final focus unless the second speaking team goes back to case in second rebuttal. All offense must be in summary and final focus.

Those three things are the most important and applicable to every debate round.

4) Speed. I'm fine with speed. I will tell you to slow down if you go fast enough for me to not be able to flow.

5) Theory/K's. I'm good with Theory and K's. You should probably not be fast with Theory arguments in front of me because it gives me less time to understand the argument.

6) Plans/CP's. I can accept plans/cp's if either your opponents don't call you out on the plan/cp or you give me a convincing reason why your particular plan/cp should be allowed in the realm of PF. For people responding to plan/cp's, saying its a plan/cp works but it would be appreciated if you implicated out why plan/cp's are bad in PF past the "its against the rules".

6) Second Rebuttal. Second Rebuttal doesn't have to go back to case. I think its strategic for you to do so. As a former first speaker whose partner didn't go back to case, summaries were often unnecessarily hard. I wish he made better choices in debate and life.

7) Dropped Arguments: Arguments are dropped after you ignore it in summary. Please collapse strategically. If you don't respond to turns on a dropped argument, your opponents can extend them. Kicking contentions/subpoints are okay as long as you do it correctly.

8) Evidence. All evidence must have author and source. eg: "Vovata of Harvard University" rather than "Vovata" or "Harvard University". I will call for evidence if either your opponent wants me to or if its extended in two different ways.

9) Dates: I think if you have time you can put dates in your case/rebuttal. If you don't, you can open up yourself to date theory. For people running date theory - tell me why it puts you in a structural disadvantage in context to the topic. Don't just cite "NSDA Rules"

10) Speaker Points: I hate the speaker point system so I give >29's to almost everyone. I also generally try to give first speakers more speaker points. Don't be rude/make up new stuff in second final focus and you should be fine.

11) Off-time road maps. I like off-time road maps. You can get pretty specific with them before your speeches.

For LD (updated 11/8/2018)

The general gist of my LD paradigm is similar to my PF paradigm. However, I will not try to impose my activity(PF) on yours. That means that any aspect of my paradigm is always up for negotiation and I'll try to keep an open mind on any argument that you guys bring to the table. Please ask if you have any specific questions about an argument or an argument type.