I am a 4th year debater, so I understand the activity. However, I have a processing disability. I can keep up pretty well in most debates, but please don't spread or speed read because my brain can't process that quick.

Stock issues: Very important: I generally default a stock issues judge, but if you explain why I should vote policy I will definitely consider it.

Policy making: Less important: I don't like the idea of voting for something that would cause more bad than good, but if you don't tell me how to vote I will focus on who won the stock issues debate.

K

I really don't like K debate. If you are running one you better genuinely believe what you are saying, because if you are just running something saying debate is bad to win a debate it is going to be hard to convince me that you should win from it.

T

I know it's unusual, but I love topicality and theory. I enjoy seeing them get debated, but please make sure you structure it properly. 

General Speech Paradigm:

When judging speech events, I try to evaluate your performance on how effectively you accomplish the goals of your piece. Basically, I want to meet you on your level. That said, it is important to consider the broader narratives which your piece feeds into. When applicable, I will discuss this on the ballot.

Debate Paradigm:

Overall

I am a Kansas traditional judge. Debate is an educational activity designed to improve your public speaking, rhetoric, and discursive abilities, please use it as such.

I am NOT a flow judge. I will take notes, but I am not judging to read or hear waves of information. You need to stress what is important in the round, I will not decide that for you. Basically, you may treat me as a lay judge.

File Sharing

Do not include me in file sharing within the round. Refer to my above comments.

Speed

I am not a fan of speed, if you speak too fast, I will mark you down on the ballot. Debate should be a discussion of ideas, speed is actively harmful to such a discussion. I will not say clear, but you'll definitely know from my nonverbals.

Theory

Theory has a place within the activity of debate, but it must be explained clearly. Do not use theory as a means to waste time within the round, I do not find it a compelling reason for voting.

(I am not favorable to arguments like "no new in the two" or the necessity of a funding mechanism. If you bring these up in a round, there must be quite convincing theory in support of your argument.)

Kritiks

I have a similar opinion to my stance on theory. I do not often find Kritiks compelling reasons to vote, if one is used to fill time it will result in a marking down on my ballot. I will only listen to frameworks that give both sides the ability to win the round.

Voting

I will vote how you tell me to.

I am a 4th year debater, Tab judge, ask me if you don't know what that is. I go with any argument, but don't usually vote on kritiks and topicality unless there is obvious abuse in the round.

Former 4-year debater at McPherson High School

TLDR: Argumentation wise I'm fine with most anything. I was a 2NC myself so I really like on-case arguments and turns.

I weigh stock issues pretty heavily into my decision, but ultimately I'm tabula rasa, I'll default to stock issues though if not told what to vote for.

Speed

I am okay with speed as long as you are clear, signpost, and slow down when you read tag lines so I can understand when you are moving on to a new card. Also if you plan on going so fast that it's hard for me to understand I would recommend asking for my email and adding me to the email chain so I can see your evidence.

Kritiks

I was a traditional style of debater so I didn't run Kritiks often. The Kritiks I had experience running were Cap K, Federalism K, and Abolition K. Kritiks aren't my favorite argument, that said I'll listen to them and vote on them if run effectively. However, I'm not as likely to vote on a K as I am on case arguments, DA's, and Turns.

Theory/Vagueness

Theory and vagueness are arguments that I believe are run as a time suck 90% of the time, so ordinarily, I never vote on them, but I understand against certain cases it's necessary to run, so in those rare instances they will have an impact on my decision.

Topicality

Topicality is an argument that I think can be good, and win rounds, but if the Aff is obviously Topical don't bother running it, it's just a waste of time. I'd much rather hear another DA, solvency, or inherency attack, something that creates clash than I would a topicality argument.

Analysis

Analysis is something I believe should be present in every policy debate round. I don't want teams to go back and forth reading walls of text to me, I want analysis on your evidence, and clashing warrants as well.

Impact Calc

Impact calc is something I weigh heavily. In a close round the team with the better impact calc will get my ballot more often than not.

I am Dane Partain a 4th year debater. Don't worry about overexplaining the basics of debate to me

Stock Issues- Important, Good arguments will hold weight. If Topicality and Theory arguments are reasonable, I could vote on it

Policy Maker- Most Important, Impact Calc and Comparatives (ADV vs DA/CP) are great. 

Tabula Rosa- Give me a good reason why I should vote a certain way and I will but don't focus your entire argument on them. 

TL:DR- Solvency, ADVs, and DAs are the most important.

Kritiks- There is a low chance I will vote on a K.

Speed- If you annunciate go for it.