Though I've been a PF middle school coach for four years, I consider myself a novice/lay-type judge. I do flow so I appreciate clear signposts, warrants and unique and impactful evidence. I am very much interested to see speakers attempt or execute innovation in form and style using humor, pathos and engaging impacts. I believe speakers who believe what they're arguing. I frown upon speaker dispositions that are communicated in a seemingly unfriendly, impatient or unkind manner.

I have been involved in competative debate for 9 years. I am a "flow" judge, in that A) I can and will flow and B) will vote off the flow. I am comfortable with speed, but prefer clarity if there is a choice between the two. I want to see warranted arguments (I won't assume something is true if you can't explain WHY it is true, and will prefer warranted arguments over unwarranted arguments). I also want to see clear impacts and weighing -- just because an argument is true doesn't mean that it matters. I think good debaters recognize that they don't have to win EVERY argument to win a round, they just have to win the arguments that matter (and accordingly will tell me which arguments matter most and why). Cross-examination is not a time for reading evidence or monologuing. If a team calls for evidence, no one should be prepping while the card is found. I GREATLY dislike misusing/misrepresenting evidence and have no tolerance for questionable ethics in this activity -- this is first and foremost an educational experience, and as such I expect that if you're using evidence you are not misrepresenting the author's conclusions and you will be able to produce the evidence if requested. I think the best and most productive debates are the ones in which debaters are friendly and having fun. 

4th year pf debater at Stuyvesant High School

Not a big fan of speed

Logic > Evidence

Put me on the email chain, please: katstealscards@gmail.com

TL;DR - Read anything, win the flow.

Bio:

My name is Kat, I use she/her pronouns, I did K debate for Bronx Science for four years and I went to TOC my senior year. I'm now a senior in University, I don't do debate anymore. I used to read mostly high theory, cap, and framework -- feel free to read my old wiki if you want an idea of arguments I'm more familiar with.

Win the flow to win, how you want to speak/debate is always up to you.

I currently attend Oklahoma State University and serve on the Student Government Senate. I did Speech and Debate all 4 years at Guymon High School.

I am a very, genuinely unbiased judge. I have/will vote for and against any different politics and beliefs.

I believe the sport of debate should be who has the better argument substantially, as well as who explains and presents it better.

While yes I have plenty of debate experience, its far better for you to do the explanation work for me to better your chances of success.

Any argument is a valid argument in my book (policy, critical, framework, etc.) its again your job to make the case to me.

I will also emphasize that you emphasize your claim before you either read evidence or give your analytics/explanation (i.e emphasize your tag with a short tag). I'm good with speed for cards, etc. (I can keep up with Eminem).

Don't be afraid to question the other side's evidence and warrants. I feel today people just give the other side the full merit of cards; challenge their validity!

Sportsmanship is something I highly value!

Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor!!

I did PF for 4 years at Stuyvesant High School. I prefer a more lay/flay style of debate.