Debaters should provide a road map and signpost during speeches. Debaters are discouraged from spreading.

I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.

I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.

I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.

I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.

My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 10 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).

Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.

My experience as a debater spans several years, across events including LD, CX/Policy, Congress, throughout both high school and collegiate national circuits; though several years removed from competing; consistently serving as a judge nationally, from NY to TX to CA.

Rules: They're necessary and well-defined, and formalizes debate procedures. The recent interpretations of procedures - regarding open vs. closed CX; CX during prep; file/data transfer consuming prep-time, etc. - may be applied to rounds only when all parties are agreeable to the proposed interpretations. If at least a single party to the debate disagrees, then the traditional interpretation of the debate procedures will be applied. Procedures provide structure, but shouldn't foster stagnation. Rules, like laws, may be viewed differently from person to person, over time. So long as parties are agreeable to reasonable rules adjustments, they may be applied. I view the role of the judge as mainly silent, but present/involved.

Opinions/Intervention: Neutrality, but knowledgeable! I evaluate information presented to me, with no bias, whatsoever. While I may have familiarity with issues and facts surrounding them, the job of the judge is to evaluate the arguments presented. I generally do not seek to subvert the job of any debater. It is the debaters' job to present cases and to rebut inaccurate information, and to contend with faulty arguments. While personal knowledge may cause me to disagree with that which is presented, it would be incumbent upon the opponent(s) to counter-argue the point. I would not impart personal thoughts; but would instead weigh arguments presented on the basis of what is known to me. If ignorant in an area, I'd rely upon debaters to make the most convincing arguments.

Spreading/Speed: Speed is no issue; articulation/enunciation is. Points intended to be made by debaters will simply be lost if not well-articulated by the debater. I will not rehash items to clear up uncertainties. It is not the job of the judge to figure out the debaters' statements. It is instead the job of debaters to present clearly their arguments such that the judge could properly evaluate the same. An indistinguishable statement is just as good as one never spoken.

Paradigm: Both theory and kritik arguments win favorable votes from me. I am rather neutral on the types of arguments presented. I see no degradation to the advancement of educational debate with kritiks, and, similar to my position on rules, believe that interpretations and approaches may be adjusted over-time and across individuals, moving from more traditional ideas of theoretical debate.

Evidence certainly helps, but should not serve as a debater's crutch. Some may present convincing enough arguments of pragmatism and suppositions that lack concrete evidence. Others may present heavily-sourced arguments, with the expectation that Politico, Fox, Washington Post, Harvard Review, etc. will carry the case for them. I accept that evidence is rarely truly pure. Meaning, for example, that where "a Reuters poll (may) shows XYZ..." that poll/study may be laden with implicit/explicit bias. So, it's the duty of the debater to not only research, but to also present crafty arguments that may not be solely dependent upon a sources. Recency may help when/where more recent sources offer better evidence on a topic; but credibility, is most important. Perhaps there's a more recent study that fails to account for the depth of a previous one. New does not always mean better.

Overall, my philosophy tilts more towards the tabula rasa school of thought. I am a neutral, largely silent, participant allowing parties to work through differences on procedural interpretations; and am open to different formats of argumentation, with no set standard; but, expect to be convinced by on party or another, no matter their style. However, there must be formality to debate. So, understanding the rules as traditionally interpreted and incorporating stock issues for a comprehensive and sound argument would help.

Paradigms: The main paradigm I have is pertaining to case debate is using "big picture" , meaning primarily main arguments along with supporting evidence without going too much into the technicalities of the subject at hand. In addition to this, spreading is fine, however if the competitor spreads to the point where what is being said is not understood by the judge and the competitors, it ultimately does not help the competitor in the debate. What helps me is slowing down once they are on the main arguments and as the competitor gets into the supporting evidence and arguments, they can speed up a bit. Other than this, there are no other specific paradigms.

I am a classical debater, and I don't tolerate aggressive arguments or improper behavior. I don't like spreading and be clear with your enunciation.