Tabula rasa. Tell me how I should vote in the round. If not I’ll defer to stock issues. Also, link off-case arguments.

I debated four years in Kansas in the early '80s. State medalist. No college debate experience. I did compete in college forensics.

I default to Policymaker with a strong emphasis on the resolution of key arguments. A speaker's ability to organize thoughts, address all arguments, provide clear analysis, and advocate for the ballot are important. T is fine if developed well. Disadvantages need to link. Counterplans are acceptable- but stick to issues rather than theory. No Speed. No K.

I have coached at the 4A level in Kansas for over three decades. I have coached 15 state championship teams and many other state medalists in 2 and 4 speaker formats. I have qualified policy teams for national tournament policy debate and had teams reach elims several times.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No – but I did 4 years of forensics.

2) Did you debate in college?

No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?

0 – but have judged forensics.

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?

0 – but have judged forensics.

5) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans are:

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

V. Topicality is:

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I am generally a chill judge. Its been a few years since I did speech and debate, but I can pick out details.

I am more relaxed with debate than I am with forensics.

In terms of debate, I'm more like any other "Stock issues" judge. It's plain and simple: You lose if you don't have a stock issue and if the negative points that out, you're done. When it comes to delivery, please do not yell over each other. I understand that in CX, there is a clash with the person asking the questions wanting information, and the person answering wanting to waste the time of the CXer. But please, don't get rude.

If you attack the person instead of the arguments and material, you automatically lose.

Debate in this setting is not a moral or philosophical argument. It is 100% information based. It is also for this reason that I hate kritiks. Please don't use them.

In terms of forensics, I used to do speeches. My primaries were Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative (7). I have some experience with HSA and Poetry. I judge based on content and delivery. Each event is different.

Content: (Extemp) Do you have content that is fleshed out, able to describe a sequence of events that led to the question and are you able to indicate future consequences with significant detail? - (Impromptu) Do you have at least one concrete and one abstract point? Does your concrete point have numbers or some reference to a definition? If your abstract point impactful? - (Informative) Do you have sources in all of your points?

Delivery: Do you own the room (poise)? Move with your points? Enunciation on point? How much are you using your hands? Are you using repetitive phrases as filler? How animated are you with your points?

When you walk in the room, please don't try and make conversation with the judge. As much as I may like to talk, this is a professional performance time, and trying to start a casual discussion with me isn't very professional.

I have four years of high school debate experience, and am now studying to become a debate/forensics coach in college.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, so I'll vote on whatever you tell me I need to be voting on. You frame the round. If no one tells me how to vote, I'll default to a stock issues judge.

If I have to default to stock issues judging, here's what I'm looking for:

Aff needs to win stock issues. For neg, offcase arguments are fine, but it's going to be hard to win the ballot without winning on any stock issues along with the offcase.

Generic DA's are ok, but please offer a compelling link to the aff.

Counterplans are also ok, but please make a compelling argument as to why I need to prefer the CP over the aff.

I'll listen to a topicality argument, but unless the violation is really obvious, it's really hard for me to justify a win based on T. If the neg runs topicality, but also runs case specific arguments, I probably won't take T into my decision.

If you are going to run a Kritik, make it good and make it make sense.

I'll clear up any questions you have.

Experience: I am an experienced debate judge and past competitor. I have judged > 7 tournaments, including State; I competed in State 2-speaker Novice and Open.

Speech Terminology & Speed Preferences: I am comfortable with either lay or technical terminology. I prefer articulated speaking; speak as fast as you want, but be sure your speech is understandable and appropriately expressed in terms of your speaking abilities. I appreciate argumentative and stylistic skills equally - a team must understand and be able to explain their arguments thoroughly. It is very important to understand what you are bringing to the debate. I highly value summaries of arguments at the end of speeches that connect the evidence and points together.

Flow: I keep a flow focusing on key arguments and sources. I value quick roadmaps (<10 sec) that list the order in which you address your points. Cross-Examination is not included in my consideration on the ballot, but a point in which teams can clarify points and/or raise questions for them to address in a proper speech.

Specific Decisive Critieria: Your overall understanding of the issues within the Debate, realistic implications, and defense/offense with the competing team aid in my decision of the round. I value Impact Calculus - Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe - in my decision. Stock Issues - Inherency, Solvency, Plan, Harms/Advantage - must be maintained by the Affirmative as per the Burden of Proof, just as the Negative must effectively argue against the Affirmative as per the Burden of Rejoinder.

Negative Strategy: I prefer that the Negative team, if they are inclined to run off-case, does so in the 1NC. With the priorities that Off-Case arguments uphold (i.e. Topicality, Disadvantages, Counter-plans, Kritiks), it is most appropriate for the Negative to run these arguments first, if at all.

Be kind to each other and value the education of debate and respect the discussions within. Understand that these are real-world issues and what the implications of your arguments are.