I am a College Student in the field of Psychology and NSDA Alumni with experience in PF and LD debates, congress, and all manner of IE judging. I appreciate an off-time roadmap, clear and concise speaking, and good sportsmanship during the entire round. I personally believe the best cases have both advanced terminology and layman’s terms, along with appropriate media parallels. After all: laws affect everyone, so it’s imperative to ensure everyone understands the reasons for advocating for or against a proposal, backed up with reliable sources of course. I have been a volunteer community advocate for varying issues from DHS cases to beautification projects, which require a great deal of persuasion and gathering reliable evidence that supports each side of the argument.

I will have my own flow going in each round, and I usually decide based on who’s case points remained standing at the end of the debate, how well each side were able to dismantle the other’s arguments in both effectiveness and politeness, and the overall courtesy each competitor gives to their partner and opponents.

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

In adjudicating debate rounds I try to be as tabula rasa as I can justify. I will intervene when I deem it necessary (probably only to avoid harm to anyone involved).

What I'm definitely okay with: Reasonable speed. Kritikal argumentation. Debate theory.

What I'm definitely not okay with: Exclusionary or discriminatory behavior/language. Manipulating evidence.

What I appreciate: Impact calculus. Signposting. Being told where to flow arguments. Link stories.

Be civil, and speak slowly enough to be understood. If any of your points is unpersuasive or unsupported, then it won’t matter to me whether it is addressed by your fellow competitor.

English Teacher (middle school) 30+ years. Philosophy Major. I value creativity, unique perspectives, honesty, and kindness. This is an opportunity to really learn to think and be exposed to many different perspectives! In the late 70's/80's I debated in Arizona--high school and at ASU. Policy debate was the only option and it was the beginning of spreading, when the speed of speaking became important for success. I follow Robert's Rules of Order and/or the event rules specified by tournament hosts to insure fairness and consistency: adhering to time limits, speaking routines, and questioning rules in debate. Have fun, learn, make friends, and do your best.

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.