CX Debate - Policymaker judge, stock issues matter, plan must solve and have advantages. Negative DA's must have real world impacts (nuclear war is not real world impacts) Good clean debate is highly preferred. Debate is a communication event, and even in a virtual setting, clear speech and eye contact should be maintained.

I have taught speech and at the secondary level for 14 years, coaching interp, extemp, and other speaking events. I have taught and coached debate at the high school level for 7 years, having 6 teams qualify for 3A State CX contest within that time.

I am looking for a poised speaker with clear and organized ideas, sharp analytical skills, and powerful persuasion. As long as I can understand you, speed is not a problem for me.

I consider myself a hybrid policy-maker/stock issues judge. I vote on stock issue arguments and impact arguments with equal weight.

I enjoy a well-crafted Counterplan. In the "quality" vs. "quantity" of evidence question, both are regarded as equal importance within the context of the round.

I very rarely appreciate Kritik arguments. It has to be virtually impenatrable for me to vote for it. I do flow rounds, so please provide roadmaps and signposts, then stick to them.

Relax! I am a teacher, first and foremost. I want each round to be a positive learning experience for all involved, regardless of the outcome.

1. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate?
1. Policy maker
2. Which best describes your priorities in judging policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.
   _____Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.
   X Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance.
3. Which best describes your philosophy concerning evidence in policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Quantity of evidence is more important than quality of evidence.
   _____Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence.

X_Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance.

1. Indicate your preference for the following items (check one number for each item):
1. Preferred Quantity of Arguments ____1____2__X__3____4____5 (1= limited quantity - 5 =Unlimited quantity)
2. Topicality ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 (1= rarely vote on – 5 =vote on often)
3. Counterplans __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 (1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
4. Disadvantages ____1____2__ __3_X__4____5 (1= Not essential – 5 Essential)
5. Conditional Arguments ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
6. Kritiqs __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)

Are there any teams you should not judge due to affiliation or prefer not to judge.

Additional Comments: I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. State your case up front as soon as possible and as clearly as possible in the 1AC. Running generic DAs or topicality arguments by the negative is risky, I'm not a fan. I prefer on-case DAs however I've noticed that this year's topic is often attacked and attacked well with "generic" DAs. Well-thought out analysis and evidence of DAs will be essential to winning a NEG ballot. Extinction arguments don't usually sway my vote. Impact calculus will sway me—tell me why the harms/advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and vice-versa. Don't claim abuse on a technicality and don't spread because I am not sympathetic and I think spreading is abusive. If I don’t hear and understand it, it didn’t happen.

I have coached all events, including directing One Act Play. I understand the value of performance. While I love interpretation and public speaking events, I am a debater at heart. Below is my paradigm for judging policy. 80% of what I say here can also be applied to LD and PF debate.

No matter what I say, I truly believe the round is what YOU make of it. Affirmative gets to set the scope, Negative gets to pick the arguments. Debate the way you were taught and in a way that will make your coach and your community proud of you. I love organization. Tell me what you are doing and include me in the round. Remember, I am an educator FIRST. I love policy debate, which means that by default I like weighing measurable impacts vs intangible ones. While I do find the K arguments to be valuable negative tools, I rarely vote on the K alone unless the impact is just that compelling or there is a framework argument that demands me to re-evaluate my policy-making mindset.(Sorry, not sorry.) That does not mean that I rarely vote on T or on framework. I see those issues to have tangible impacts in the debate as they shape what should or should not happen. Using offensive language will earn you a quick loss (I don’t like it and I don’t tolerate it in my classroom). At the end of the round, I look at what issues were clear and the rationale behind them. I expect the debaters to explain why I should vote on something/ not just give me issues. As a result, I urge Negatives to pick their issues and Affirmatives to tell me a good clear story of why I should prefer the 1AC to whatever the neg argument is. I like when debaters compare the world of the affirmative vs the world of the negative. Have fun and be nice.

I prefer debaters stand and face me. I don't like debaters to turn their back on each other or stand over each other in the round (I know this is really not relevant in the virtual world of debate, but it does clue you in on how I feel about decorum in the round). I can usually keep up in a fast round, but I am finding myself more aggravated with the behavior of debaters than performance in the round. Maybe I am just feeling my age. Also, the whole flashing issue drives me nuts. I don't believe in giving extra prep time. Work out a system that is fair in the round to all. If you want to impress me, actually flow and listen to your opponents. I have been told by my own students that I give pretty good non-verbal indicators as to how I am feeling about the debate or issues in the round. Hint- it might help you to pay attention to those.