About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

A few things-
I tend to stick to the flow evaluating offense/defense unless you tell me otherwise - A dropped argument is not necessarily a round winner for my ballot
Basically I will vote on whatever you tell me is most important and I am willing to listen to anything you want to read in front of me.
Be respectful - we are all here to have a good debate

T: To be honest I have never been a very good T debater and I think T debates are a big pain to judge. If the rebuttals do boil down to topicality please slow down so I can get all the nuances of the debate. Limits and predictability are not impacts they are internal links. Discussing how limits and predictability affect debate/ research/ neg prep and what that means in terms of education etc. (This also goes for framework debates!!!). 

Theory: I will usually never vote for theory as a reason to reject the team unless it's a Condo debate. Generally, I think reasonable conditionality (example: 1 Kritik and 1 CP) is a good thing but condo bad arguments can be used strategically to get the aff out of a bind. On theory arguments that are not Condo I am more neg leaning but am open to being persuaded by either team and it really just comes down to the flow.

Kritiks: I enjoy Kritiks feel free to run them aff and neg. I am well versed with feminist / gender theory, although I am familiar with other critical literature bases. The link debate is the most important part of a critique for me. Superb impact analysis does not matter if there is no link to the 1AC. I also think that performative links are valid arguments and can be used as reasons for why the perm does not solve. 
I think the role of the ballot is to vote for who wins their arguments and does the better debating. If you say the role of the ballot is something else, you still have to win that it is the best role of the ballot so I would vote for you becuase you're winning your arguments... 
I generally think the aff should get perms although can be persuaded otherwise in an instance where the aff is not about the resolution.


Aff framework vs. the k - probably will never vote on "you don't get a k when you're neg". Your interp should probably say you should get to weigh your imapcts vs. the K.
Performative/Non-Traditional - I think the aff should be about something pertaining to the topic and reccomend something be done that is different than the status quo (does NOT have to be a plan or involve the United States Federal Government). If the aff chooses to not do this, they'll have to win why the topical version of the aff can't solve for the performance/discussion that the aff began and win an impact turn to framework. In terms of impact analysis. You should be able to explain what reasonable neg ground exists versus your aff that is within the realm of topic-reltaed research. That said, I'll still vote for an aff that is not about the topic if they win their impact turns to framework/accessibility questions. (*** Basically lifted this section from Maddie Langr's judge philosophy because I agree). 

CPs: They're necessary for almost every policy oriented 1NC. If you win you solve the aff than you don't need to win a huge risk of your offense to get my ballot.

DAs: Defense alone is not enough to beat a DA for me there is usually never a 0% risk of a link or impact. Same goes for neg, a DA without good case take outs is not enough to win and you always need good DA turns case arguments. Impact calculous generally filters my decision for case v. disad debates. As for politics theory such as intrinsicness, vote no, etc. I will vote on it but I usually think it only belongs in the 2AR if the neg has messed something up.

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

For the past 14 and 1/2 years I have been the head coach of the Speech and Debate Team at Huntington High School. As a Public Forum judge, I believe that hitting the key voting issues in the Final Focus is very important and helps to secure the winner. Explaining specifically why your team is winning the debate is how to finalize the win. In addition, hit the impacts clearly. Make sure the reasoning your team uses is clear and precise. Never assume that as a judge I know what you are talking about in your case, so explain the details clearly.

Speed is fine as long as I, the judge, can understand every word you and your partner say.

I have advanced degrees in speech communication, rhetoric and argumentation and I teach at the college level on those subjects. However I take very seriously the idea that public forum debate should be judged by non-experts and therefore I am not a fan of speed and the quantity of arguments over the quality of arguments. Use public speaking skills effective for a general audience.

The quality of evidence and logic will generally win the day for me, and clear signposting, lack of jargon and connecting your rebuttals back to your opponents case are what I am looking for. While I take notes during the debate, evidence, warrant and impact are more important to me than whether your opponent answers all of your individual arguments.

In crossfire the debaters should take turns and I will interject if one debater simply seems to be trying to shout down the other. Civility is more impressive to me. In summary and final focus speeches you should explain clearly why your team should win the round in language that a lay judge and audience can understand. Debaters can keep their own time and use their laptops and phones within the limits of the rules. I try to be pretty relaxed when I judge so as long as you aren't trying to take advantage things should be fine.

I don't mind audience members as long as they are not disruptive and as long as the participants don't mind. Have fun with the tournament!

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

I have judged debate events off and on for 35+ years.

For my first 15 years, I primarily judged high school Policy Debate and only occasionally high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) andHIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and SPAR/Extemp Debate.

Although my initial experience was in high school Policy Debate, I do not like high speed. If I am leaning forward to catch everything you are saying or you are gasping for air between utterances, you are talking too fast. If that is the case or you're overwhelming my ability to process information, I will say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear, I will say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if I say SPEED or CLEAR.

Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won (and in assigning speaker points).

In a policy debate, I look to stock issues; in value debate, I look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I ordinarily look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance of the evidence or similar standard offered by the debaters.

I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise. But I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.

If you run a kritik or counterplan, I expect you to explain it clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the topic/case you're debating. I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.

I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.

I judge on what I hear. I expect debaters to both make arguments and use evidence (even in IPDA/extemp debate - even though I understand there will be less evidence there). I also expect debaters to summarize why they won; don't spend so much time refuting arguments that you leave no time to tell me clearly why you won.