I'm pretty easy to please. I want to say I'm a pure Tabula Rasa judge, but as I've gotten older I have found that isn't true.

I boil down to this:

- I will listen to whatever you want to run. I may have never voted for a counterplan or kritik, but I absolutely will listen to them and consider them.

- I don't want stock issues ignored.

- I want to be told WHY I should vote for things.

- Genuinely, the only thing I do not want to hear is No New in 2. I'm a former 2N and the Negative Block is one of my favorite things. The speech is called a Constructive speech for a reason.

SY23-24

This is my 8th year judging Debate and 9th judging Forensics

Debate: Mostly Policy

I judge as I would in a courtroom deciding whether or not someone should be innocent or guilty. I am going to listen to both sides, see how well you are able to ask & answer questions, & ultimately prove your case. I am going to wait for someone to CONVINCE me beyond a reasonable doubt that I should vote your side.

Sometimes my decision may come down to how comfortable you are in your knowledge of the topic, &how it's delivered. Do you have confidence? How prepared were you? Do you only talk about how wrong the other team is & why they shouldn't win? I want to know whyYOU should win. When you walk in, I will assume you know the rules, so I just want to hear a good, lively debate that stays on topic.

Forensics:

I received 1st at State every year I was in Forensics in high school, so it means a lot to me.

I look for confidence, proper enunciation, animation, voicing, originality &preparedness. I expect appropriate dress, as it is often distracting & interrupts decorum. You need to look professional while representing your school.

Your excitement & commitment will come through in your performance.

Melanie Davis

Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

I competed for four years in high school policy debate and I now compete on my college's debate team. I'm a stock issues and policymaker.

I can handle a pretty fast pace but no spreading, please

Typically: I don't mind it at all, but don't expect to win off of a very nitpicky one

Generic DA's: I'm fine with generic disads but make sure links are analyzed as to how it applies to their case.

K's: Not a fan of K's

CP's: Fine with those

Analyze your arguments. Don't just read a card and move on - explain to me how this applies to the round.

My experience:

Competitor for Remington High School a long time ago; involvement in policy and primarily speech-focused IEs

Competitor for Sterling College pre-COVID; involvement in IPDA and speech focused IEs

Assistant coach for Nickerson High School pre-COVID; involvement in policy and IEs

Assistant coach for Ashland Jr/Sr High School the COVID year; minimal involvement in IEs

Head coach at Ashland Jr/Sr High School post-COVID; involvement in IEs

Now: Head coach at Nickerson High School; involvement in Policy, Congress, and IEs

2-Speaker Policy:

Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.

What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.

I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.

New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.

Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.

How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that some people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.

How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.

How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(

How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)

When deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer how much impact you and your arguments had on the round then how you sounded as a speaker. Unless you do something really rude. If you are extremely rude to another debater I cannot reward you with a high rank. And your team is probably going to lose the round. I want to see a debate round, not kids getting verbally bullied.

I mostly base my decisions on good policy. I do mix in stock issues of they are applicable which is mostly topicality.

I prefer real-world arguments.

Good speech organization is always a positive foot forward.

Respect for each other is key. I do not like shouting matches or putting down of others.

Counterplans are acceptable if they are sound.

I am not a fan of Kritiks or Resolution Justification.

My preference on the pace of speech is the pace at which the common man can understand. In short, if you're gasping for breath, you're too fast.

I debated for three years in high school (a LONG time ago) in the late 80s. I judged for quite a few years then took a break for awhile and resumed judging the last 7 years consistently. There have been many changes that have evolved throughout the time, but I remain pretty traditional.

PET PEEVE: I hate the use of the term "card." As my wonderful debate coach insisted, you should not use the term "card" is not what you are relying upon it is evidence, support, substantiation, or anything similar. Debaters today haven't even made "cards" as we used to back in my day of debate. It is just sloppy speaking as with too many acronyms.

To me, debate is about the affirmative making the prima facie case on all 5 of the stock issues (Topicality, Significance, Inherency, Workability & Solvency). Just like in a criminal case, the Negative only has to win one to create reasonable doubt. I do believe Topicality is a vital issue, and I will listen to the arguments, but I do not want to hear droning on and on about the impacts - get on with how the case isn't topical and move on.

Organized arguments are important to me and add to your ability to persuade.

I am unimpressed with tricky or non-traditional arguments. I like to see the basics performed well and at a high level.

As far as speed goes, I do not find it persuasive or convincing for individuals to speak in monotone voice as quickly as you can reading source after source. Don't speak faster than you can clearly enunciate and take time to explain your arguments and how the evidence you have "proves" the point you are trying to make. I also like when people listen to their opponent's evidence and find flaws, reasons why it doesn't support their case.

A few words about Cross Examinations - I find it offensive when debaters ask questions and then interrupt or talk over the person trying to answer. IF you want a "yes/no" response, learn to ask questions that elicit such responses. If the person drones on and on and on, then I think it is reasonable to raise a hand and say, I think you have answered may we move one? Or something respectful. Keep in mind that this is not argument. You cannot just rely on the questions raised here to carry through on into the speeches as they do not.

For this online forum - I do not want to be part of the email chain as I have enough to manage the two screens with zoom & tabroom open. If there becomes some dispute about the evidence/source, I will ask you to send it to me. I also do not want to wait forever if things are not going through. We did not routinely just have the other side hand over their case/evidence and learned to take our own notes and create arguments just fine. I have been in rounds wasting 30+ minutes just waiting for evidence to be received by the opponents. I like to keep it moving.

Congratulations on making it to the state tournament! It is an honor to represent your school and yourselves. I wish you the best of luck this weekend.

Debate Experience: First year judging debate. Have 20+ years of internal auditing experience and basketball refereeing experience, so I am familiar with evaluating situations from multiple perspectives, listening to arguments and making decisions.

Please introduce yourselves and what school you are from and please enunciate clearly. This speaks to the confidence and pride you carry yourselves with. Similarly, speak slowly enough and clearly enough when presenting your case. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t possibly judge for your side. I also ask that you present your case, rather than read it. Suggest making the most of your prep time to familiarize yourself with the material so you can summarize it rather than read it.

Just as I would evaluate a basketball play or internal audit finding, I listen and observe the cases being made by each side. I am very open-minded in my judging and do not rush to judgment, rather wait to see how well you present your case, rebuttals and answer questions. I am not inherently for or against counterplans, kritiks or topicality, just ask that whatever you do, do it well and make a strong case for it. Being an auditor, I am more persuaded by logos, with ethos being a close second and pathos being a distant third. (Interpretation: presentation is important, but you can’t charm your way out of a weak case)

Last but certainly not least, Sportsmanship is of the utmost importance. Compete like crazy and be kind while doing it.

I debated in high school and college. I majored in history and philosophy as an undergrad and have a Masters in communication. I taught high school history, government and journalism for 33 years.

My approach to judging is "The Well Read Man on the Street." That is to say, I am not Tabula Rasa, but neither am I an expert. I expect arguments that are logical, supported by evidence, and real world. I believe that a few good, well developed arguments are far better than many bad, poorly developed arguments. Rhetorical questions do not qualify as an argument in debate.

Evidence must be sourced and plausible. I do not accept at face value sources and evidence that are significantly outside the mainstream. In the era of the internet and ideological extremism, I refuse to give credence to something just because it is printed. The following sources are most credible: peer reviewed journals, government publications, and mainstream media. The following experts are most credible: Academics and professionals in the field, government representatives, non-partisan think tanks.

In regards to topicality, I apply a criteria of a reasonable plain text reading of the resolution.

Cross Ex. is for seeking clarification, not for making an argument or scoring points. While I generally don't pay attention to +X, the following will be reflected negatively in speaker points: refusing to honestly answer honest questions, demanding yes/no answers to questions that are not yes/no questions, being snarky or rude, and filibustering.

I am a firm believer in the negative presumption: i.e., the affirmative must provide significant justification for abandoning the status quo. If the negative runs a counter plan, even a conditional counter plan, it gives up presumption because it is acknowledging there is the possibility of serious flaw in the SQ. However, I will grant the negative the right to offer a minor repair without giving up presumption.

Every judge has his/her own calculus for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of case. Mine tends to value people over things and the common good over the individual.

Stylistically, I view debate as a persuasive communication event. If I can't understand an argument I can't consider it in my decision. It is the speakers responsibility to communicate to me, not my responsibility to figure out what he/she is trying to say. I expect arguments to be labeled and organized.

Finally, there is only one rule in debate: you have to persuade the judge.