As an English and drama teacher, I am well versed in reading books and people. I have a lot of experience and knowledge in events that involve acting in one way or other.

As a judge for speech and debate, I do not pretend to be extremely well versed in the unique world of argumentation. What this means for you is that your are appealing to the "common man" for the most part. I will keep my ears open for reasonable arguments, but I simply won't be able to keep up if you speak as quickly as possible.

I have been judging speech and debate for six years now (over 60 tournaments). I never debated in high school. I got involved in the debate community when my oldest child joined the debate team. I have had four kids on the debate team, two currently. So I guess you could say I am an experienced mommy judge. I have tried my best to learn as much as I can so that I can be a competent and fair judge. With that in mind, I offer you my paradigm:

In general, I am good with speed, I flow, and I allow tag teaming, flex time, non-timed road maps and non-timed evidence exchange. I prefer tech over truth, depth over breadth, and don't mind if you group arguments. I am a big picture judge and an impact calculus junkie. I understand debate lingo. I don't mind if you want to debate progressively or traditionally. I am open to all arguments. I appreciate logical and analytical arguments as much as evidence based arguments. I don't like to set limits on how you debate because I want you to enjoy your round and try new things. I have entertained a conversation kritik (LD) and love letters to the ocean (CX) in the past. I still have my treasured flows from the Beetle Kritik (CX China Resolution). As you can see, I am up for anything, but don't assume I know everything. Remember that although I have six years of experience judging, I am still learning. If you have something you really want to run, do it, but keep me up with you and educate me on your pet argument as you debate. I also love voters because I am lazy and if if I agree with your voters, you have just filled out my ballot for me. Now for some specifics:

In Lincoln Douglas debate I allow counter plans and progressive arguments. I only value the V & C if you do. I am still trying to figure out why that is so important. But I have voted on it in the past if the debaters made a big deal about it. I am more likely to vote against you if you drop an argument, since LD is all about clash, but will allow you to group arguments in subpoints as long as you answer each contention.

In Public Forum debate I don't have any specific things you should know. Just have fun.

Policy is my favorite. So know that if I get to judge your round, I am just so glad to be here. I think I covered most of it in my general paradigm but I did want to discuss T. I have voted on T before but only if it was an obscure aff and not one of the five novice affs. I go for reasonability over competing interpretations. However, I have had some beautiful T arguments wasted on me, I am very sorry to say. If you love T arguments and are willing to risk it, then persuade me and educate me on T. I want to understand it better and be more open minded in this area. I would have to say this is the only area I am biased, but it's simply because I don't get it.

For those of you in Congress, I only have one thing to say: warrant your claims with credible evidence. I immediately drop you two ranks if you don't warrant your claims.

Bottom line: have fun and enjoy your rounds. Good luck!

It is my opinion that each style of debate should be judged differently, as they have very real differences between them. Before I explain my paradigm for the various styles, I did want to give a general note that applies to any format of debate in terms of my thoughts on framework arguments of all types (including topicality):

If you are going to run a framework argument (meaning you are trying to explain how you believe the round should be judged) then I will hear you out. If you want me to use your framework, I ask for a few things in return. First, it is not enough for me for you to simply state your preference on how the round is judged, but instead there is at least a small degree of burden on you to convince me your framework is at least as good as the traditional framework. If you only establish that your framework is also valid, rather than superior, then you should be trying to win on both the traditional means as well as your framework. Simply stating that your framework is superior is worthless if you do not take a moment to explain to me why it is superior.

Even if you do believe you have presented a superior framework argument, if you refuse to engage your opponent's arguments I consider that rude, disrespectful, and a poor strategic decision. If you present a highly unpredictable framework argument I reserve the right to be sympathetic to your opponent(s) claiming that your narrow framework is abusive. I have found that I will more highly weight arguments that are obviously about the topic than I will weigh arguments that are founded on an abusive framework your opponents called you on.

That being said, if you find your opponent's framework abusive, it is not enough for you to simply state the you find it abusive. I expect you to present your reasoning for finding it abusive.

I have a very low threshold for hypocrisy when it comes to framework arguments. Examples include calling an opponent's argument unpredictable and then proceeding to read cards that specifically clash with it anyway...or running a Kritik based on a theoretical or philosophical standpoint which you or your partner also violate. For example, if you run an argument based on helping people rise above some form of bigotry and/or prejudice...but then also display some different form of bigotry and/or prejudice in the presentation of your arguments you can expect me to drop your kritik. I do not believe that bigotries should be prioritized in a way that make some better or worse and I do not believe an argument founded on this should win.

In the absence of an alternative framework, below is my default framework for various types of debate:

Policy/CX Debate

I will evaluate unframed policy debates through the stock issues, and the burden of proof is on the affirmative to show that they meet the stock issues, although it is the burden of the negative to prove that they do not. If you are instead running any counterplan arguments, please see the information above regarding framework arguments. On the subject of topicality, the affirmative is assumed by me to be topical unless the negative can convincingly prove otherwise. Unethical presentation of information or unethical treatment of your opponents does not impress me, but by the same token "crying abuse" when there was no ethical violation wastes time you should have spent building your argument and does not impress me. If you feel your opponents have been unethical and/or abusive...but you and your partner have not been similarly abusive and have not been significantly abusive in some other way, consider taking a moment to explain the unfairness to me.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

In the absence of a suitable alternative framework being presented, I am functionally a value-criterion judge. Choosing an intuitive value is probably wiser than choosing a value which does not make sense to people who lack a philosophy degree. Choosing a criterion that logically showcases your value is a good idea...because if I cannot see how your criterion links to your value the way you presented it then when I evaluate how good of a job you did of upholding your value...it will not be favorable. The best way to win with me is to demonstrate that your side is winning on both values, next best is demonstrating that you win on one value and break even on the other, next best if demonstrating that you will on one value but not on the other but you took time to explain the relative superiority of your value.

At the end of the round, my final decision will come down to how both sides did on meeting each of the values, ideally by using the provided criteria. I do know what a standard is, and I am fine with those, but my process is still functionally the same.

Public Forum Debate

I am openly disgusted by how most adults engage in unrefined arguments based on only presenting and considering one side of an issue. In the last two years, I have had enough of it to last a lifetime. Arguments presented in an uncivil manner are likely to resonate much less with me. Ultimately I will consider the strength of the arguments you presented successfully, diminished by any successful clashing against them done by your opponents...and then compared that to the strength of the arguments your opponents presented successfully, diminished by any successful clashing you did against those arguments. I prefer to see you interacting with your opponent's arguments rather than simply repeating your own and saying they are better. If you must use that strategy, I encourage you to at least reference which specific arguments your opponent is making that you want me to compare your points against.

Congress Debate

I want well-reasoned arguments supporting your side of a given issue. This means your speech should make your stance obvious (which means you need a stance) and there should be conviction. Conviction without civility, in my opinion, has no place in level-headed legislation...and legislators without a level head make me uncomfortable.

Other forms of Debate

I have not judge other forms enough to have a good sense of my precise paradigm, but I will update this as that changes.

I am looking for clear, concise speech/speaking. I listen to people that take time to be clear, address the audience and stay non-emotional. Information needs to be backed by facts and not conjecture.