I use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.

I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

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.

I don't have a lot of experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. Develop clear, concise arguments, provide evidence for those arguments, signpost and apply your arguments and have fun.

I try to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy. I am willing to listen and evaluate any type/form of argumentation. I will want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments.

Speed is generally not a problem.

General:

• Be respectful, but don't waste your time asking your opponents for permission for things like the first question.
• This means treading the fine line of being aggressive and respectful.
• I like to see crystal clear clash on the flow. Please when framing rebuttals go in order down the flow. Do not bounce around.

Value/Criterion

• Provide clear links between your value and criterion and the rest of your case.
• At the end of the day your value and criterion are most important to me in LD. I want to see clear links and evidence upholding those. I'm looking for logic to support your theory.

ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING.

I prefer K debate, I like high theory, and I know how to flow T.  Policy, in its most traditionally understood form, is not my cup of tea, but it is the majority of what I judge so go figure. I will vote on the team that wins the round- framing is just as important to me as impact calculus.  There is not an argument I wont vote on- except for distinctly new arguments in the rebuttals. Spreading is great, just don't get mad if I yell speed- I rarely have to and when I do I HAVE to.

More about me:

My pronouns are they/them- I will give bonus points and maybe candy to teams that ask everyone's pronouns before the round :)

I debated for four years in high school and a little over one in college. I only did LD in HS, and I mostly did K debate once I joined collegiate debate. For the past three summers I've worked at UTNIF- and the majority of my judging experience happened there.

I'm studying Latin American Studies, and LGBTQ studies at the University of Oklahoma.  I have a decent understanding of Global economics, current events, and Political Policy in general.

DO NOT SPREAD

Hi, I'm a political science major ( elections and campaigns emphasis), International Security Studies,and Journalism.

My pronouns are she/her, and I am a former LD, Congress and USX/IX competitor ( I also have some OO experience!).

Debate:

speak clearly when reading any pieces of evidence, otherwise I cannot ensure that I can weigh it in.

ESPECIALLY be clear about your framework, as this is one of the most important part of your case

be respectful to your opponent(s) and judge(s)

use the correct pronouns for your opponent(s) and judge(s).

I love theory, especially gender/social justice theory and constitutional theory.

CPs are great, just as long as you use them effectively

Ks are okay, just be effective as previously stated.

bigotry will not be tolerated in round.

I like to read evidence and cases for myself, so don't be surprised or alarmed if I ask to see them.

Self-timing is preferred.

If you chose to preform in a non-normative way (ie. music, rage, poetry, etc) explain why your discourse matters in terms of the debate space and why it creates a preferable or more accessible model of debate.

IE:

Dynamics are essential! If you are competing in IX/USX it can be hard to remember this, but it can really make or break your rank in round

Sources in IX/USX must be made clear or points will be taken off

I know when you're making up false or incorrect facts about policy so don't do that.

Speeches that are narrative and metaphorical are always the most fun to listen to!!