First, I judge on who I think made the best arguments. "Best Arguments" is defined by me as being supported by dependable evidence, made some good emotional appeal (used specifics, vivid descriptions and personal reference pronouns such as "you, your" and "we, us, our") and established credibility by showing competence with the topic and dynamic (energetic and enthusiastic) as well as ethical in the presentation of their arguments.

I also judge on the team's ability to speak well - have good volume, an appropriate rate with good articulation, well-enumerated reasons, easily followed paths of logic (that are logical) and especially for public forum, speakers who speak so that the general public can understand the arguments and the points of the arguments, evidence and examples.

As an English and drama teacher, I am well versed in reading books and people. I have a lot of experience and knowledge in events that involve acting in one way or other.

As a judge for speech and debate, I do not pretend to be extremely well versed in the unique world of argumentation. What this means for you is that your are appealing to the "common man" for the most part. I will keep my ears open for reasonable arguments, but I simply won't be able to keep up if you speak as quickly as possible.

It is my opinion that each style of debate should be judged differently, as they have very real differences between them. Before I explain my paradigm for the various styles, I did want to give a general note that applies to any format of debate in terms of my thoughts on framework arguments of all types (including topicality):

If you are going to run a framework argument (meaning you are trying to explain how you believe the round should be judged) then I will hear you out. If you want me to use your framework, I ask for a few things in return. First, it is not enough for me for you to simply state your preference on how the round is judged, but instead there is at least a small degree of burden on you to convince me your framework is at least as good as the traditional framework. If you only establish that your framework is also valid, rather than superior, then you should be trying to win on both the traditional means as well as your framework. Simply stating that your framework is superior is worthless if you do not take a moment to explain to me why it is superior.

Even if you do believe you have presented a superior framework argument, if you refuse to engage your opponent's arguments I consider that rude, disrespectful, and a poor strategic decision. If you present a highly unpredictable framework argument I reserve the right to be sympathetic to your opponent(s) claiming that your narrow framework is abusive. I have found that I will more highly weight arguments that are obviously about the topic than I will weigh arguments that are founded on an abusive framework your opponents called you on.

That being said, if you find your opponent's framework abusive, it is not enough for you to simply state the you find it abusive. I expect you to present your reasoning for finding it abusive.

I have a very low threshold for hypocrisy when it comes to framework arguments. Examples include calling an opponent's argument unpredictable and then proceeding to read cards that specifically clash with it anyway...or running a Kritik based on a theoretical or philosophical standpoint which you or your partner also violate. For example, if you run an argument based on helping people rise above some form of bigotry and/or prejudice...but then also display some different form of bigotry and/or prejudice in the presentation of your arguments you can expect me to drop your kritik. I do not believe that bigotries should be prioritized in a way that make some better or worse and I do not believe an argument founded on this should win.

In the absence of an alternative framework, below is my default framework for various types of debate:

Policy/CX Debate

I will evaluate unframed policy debates through the stock issues, and the burden of proof is on the affirmative to show that they meet the stock issues, although it is the burden of the negative to prove that they do not. If you are instead running any counterplan arguments, please see the information above regarding framework arguments. On the subject of topicality, the affirmative is assumed by me to be topical unless the negative can convincingly prove otherwise. Unethical presentation of information or unethical treatment of your opponents does not impress me, but by the same token "crying abuse" when there was no ethical violation wastes time you should have spent building your argument and does not impress me. If you feel your opponents have been unethical and/or abusive...but you and your partner have not been similarly abusive and have not been significantly abusive in some other way, consider taking a moment to explain the unfairness to me.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

In the absence of a suitable alternative framework being presented, I am functionally a value-criterion judge. Choosing an intuitive value is probably wiser than choosing a value which does not make sense to people who lack a philosophy degree. Choosing a criterion that logically showcases your value is a good idea...because if I cannot see how your criterion links to your value the way you presented it then when I evaluate how good of a job you did of upholding your value...it will not be favorable. The best way to win with me is to demonstrate that your side is winning on both values, next best is demonstrating that you win on one value and break even on the other, next best if demonstrating that you will on one value but not on the other but you took time to explain the relative superiority of your value.

At the end of the round, my final decision will come down to how both sides did on meeting each of the values, ideally by using the provided criteria. I do know what a standard is, and I am fine with those, but my process is still functionally the same.

Public Forum Debate

I am openly disgusted by how most adults engage in unrefined arguments based on only presenting and considering one side of an issue. In the last two years, I have had enough of it to last a lifetime. Arguments presented in an uncivil manner are likely to resonate much less with me. Ultimately I will consider the strength of the arguments you presented successfully, diminished by any successful clashing against them done by your opponents...and then compared that to the strength of the arguments your opponents presented successfully, diminished by any successful clashing you did against those arguments. I prefer to see you interacting with your opponent's arguments rather than simply repeating your own and saying they are better. If you must use that strategy, I encourage you to at least reference which specific arguments your opponent is making that you want me to compare your points against.

Congress Debate

I want well-reasoned arguments supporting your side of a given issue. This means your speech should make your stance obvious (which means you need a stance) and there should be conviction. Conviction without civility, in my opinion, has no place in level-headed legislation...and legislators without a level head make me uncomfortable.

Other forms of Debate

I have not judge other forms enough to have a good sense of my precise paradigm, but I will update this as that changes.