Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

This is my fourth year of judging speech and debate. I generally judge PF, LD or interp. I have a strong background in theater so I put a lot of weight into performance. I want to be able to hear and understand you. That means NO SPREADING. Thank you. This also means that for interp and speech events I appreciate eye contact, body movement, and using the space that you're given.

Hi everyone!!

I am a flow judge that did PF for one year and LD for 3. I appreciate pretty speakers but it's not what wins a round. I like observations, sign-posting, clash, and evidence. Impacts should be quantifiable and logical. Do not drop points, and don't read definitions please :)

Evidence

All attacks/contentions should have multiple sources of evidence with dates (even LD). If you cannot provide the evidence, or if it's misrepresented, it's immediately dropped.

Voters

I will vote based off of what you tell me to vote. But you have to have actually won that point for me to give it to you.

Don't give me more than three voters and don't use just the taglines of your contentions - weigh your impacts!

Cross

I don't flow it unless something that you say is really off-putting. Bring it up in a speech if there is something important.

Misc.

I do not like kritiks, a crazy amount of subpoints, or spreading. If you say that your opponent is being "abusive," they probably aren't or at the very least you can find a better word to describe them.

Theories/arguments that are obviously meant to throw off your opponent will be immediately dropped. I don't think they're fun or in the spirit of debate.