LD Debate: I am a more traditional judge. Spreading is fine, but needs to be legible. Speaking quality is important. Debater should demonstrate quality in oratory skills, as well as argumentation. Values and criterion should support resolution with contentions that build. Cross-Examination should build level of discourse and be conducted with a high level of respect. Impacts and voter's appeal should be provided appropriately to drive home case. I am a first year Debate coach, but competed in debate in high school at Keller Central HS. I am not closed off to any type of debate, and am open-minded, despite my natural inclination to more traditional debate.

CX/Policy Debate: I am an open book and enjoy hearing nuanced and different arguments. Open to all kinds of Affs and Negs. I prefer the neg to break down to their best argument in the final rebuttals. Spreading is fine, but shouldn't interfere with ability to intake information.

Policy/CX Debate:

I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. The following is personal preference, but one thing that irks me as a judge is teams that kick arguments that they are winning or that there is good debate on, only kick arguments if you're absolutely sure the argument will have no impact on the round at all. Also, when you kick an argument, please be explicit about kicking the argument and don't "silent kick" an argument.

Style and Delivery Preferences:

I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

In CX debate I'm as basic as a stock issues judge can get, not much to it. In LD I wouldn't say I necessarily have an exact paradigm, so surprise me. One thing I always look for though is clash; clash I what makes a debate entertaining in my eyes, and as such carries huge weight. You win the clash debate, you just might win the whole round.