As a judge in policy, I focus mainly on stock issues. To win, you should be direct and clear as to why your team upholds them or how the other fails to do so. Spreading is ultimately your choice to make, but if I cannot understand you as a judge, it will harm you in my final decision.

Background:

I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:

• The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.

• The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.

General:

Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.

Paradigm:

My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.

For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".

Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.

Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.

Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.

Cross-Ex: I flow it.

Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.

Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.

Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.

Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.

Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.

Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.

Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.

Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.

Hello! I am a professional speaker and neuroscience-based communications consultant and professor. As such, I am all about your communication, both verbal and non-verbal. I pay attention to tone, body language and presence. I am always so proud of each of you and the effort you put into your performances. Good luck!

I am a parent from Boise, Idaho and this is my fourth year of judging LD and PF. We don't see many students running progressive cases so my LD experience is almost all traditional. 

I believe effective communication is important, but I can handle some speed as long as you emphasize your case framework.  Please give me clear and distinct taglines for value, criterion, contentions etc so I can keep up and flow the round.  I also strive for a tabula rasa (blank slate) perspective, setting aside my personal knowledge and opinions.  I base my judgement on the information you provide during the round and your ability to present and support your case while refuting your opponent's case.

I'm looking for logical connections between your VC and contentions, enough evidence to demonstrate your logic, definitions (especially if your case depends on a particular interpretation of ambiguous or esoteric terms in the resolution), clash that shows me the gaps in your opponent's case, and voters.  Although I haven't heard many, I'm open to progressive cases, but I still want to hear the logic in a narrative and clear explanations of links and impacts in kritiks.

As a coms judge I am looking for a classic/traditional debate where you are supporting or negating the resolution with your value criterion. I appreciate respectful clash and will attempt to flow. I am okay with moderate speed. I understand that LD is morals based but I am looking for empirical impacts weighed under your value and criterion.