I did PF in high school. I do IPDA now at UCSD.

GENERAL

My ballot comes down to keeping this atmosphere fair, fun, and educational. If a strategy is within those lines you should be good.

I don't prefer speed. Additionally, if one side is not comfortable with speed, you shouldn't be going fast. That being said, if both sides are cool with speed and I am made aware of that I won't tank speaker points.

Signpost where you are going ("Responding to their contention 1..." "Their x card says y..."). Try and stay in chronological order and take care of top of case argumentation first.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the speech following cross.

I appreciate a good narrative. Tell your story how you want to.

I'll vote on theory but it should be brought up as more than just a strategy to win.

PF

My RFD will most likely include the framework debate. If a framework isn't fair: tell me what their framework is, why it isn't fair, give a different framework, and why this new framework is better. I would prefer to not listen to a topicality debate though so -> If you can win on both frameworks presented, do that.

Please include neat voters in FF.

If the framework isn't as important for the topic I will end up looking at the flow and the overall narratives.

LD

I never did LD but I do appreciate a good value debate. Make sure your value is both fair and intertwined with your narrative.

I am open to most argumentation though so long as it is fair and educational.

Parli

While I do appreciate some evidence in parli, I will prefer logical argumentation in this event. Make some good POIs but I will probably end up voting on the speeches themselves.

Congress

Give a unique, fun speech. I appreciate the rp as a congressmember but don't get too caught up on that. I prefer one good speech to two mediocre ones so don't feel the need to game recency.

Policy

Never did policy but I will respect the event and flow however the round goes. My general preferences will still mostly apply, however.

Speech

In general I don't have any preferences for speech. In impromptu, however, I prefer speeches that fall in line with the name of the event and will place those over any canned speeches.

While I am new to coaching and judging in California, I do have six years of judging and coaching debate under my belt from Virginia. I am more traditional in that I like my different debate "flavors" to actually remain distinct. Counterplans and spreading, as far as I am concerned, have no place in LD or PF debate. I like to see a debate with actual thought, structure, and clash - not just a "see who can drop the most information in the judge's lap" contest. If you're going to provide me with evidence and information, you better do something with it. I also don't care for a "my evidence is better than your evidence" debate. You can, and should, tell me if your evidence is newer, more relevant, or more compelling than your opponent's, but you should not make it the basis of your rebuttal. We are here to argue ideas, not whose study came out most recently. Additionally, I respect debaters who know what is going on in round and who are not afraid to call their opponents out for dropping a contention or misinterpreting the resolution.

I am a high school English teacher and I know the real key to any good argument is a strong foundation and staying on message. Organized constructives will get you far, but organized rebuttals will get your farther. Roadmapping and signposting are very much welcomed and encouraged. In LD, your value should carry through all parts of your case.

All that being said: I love debate for what it is at it's core - a conversation between two intelligent human beings who are able to both listen and speak equally well. I start every round with a fresh mind and a completely blank slate. My own personal thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have no place in a debate round. As such, I side with whichever debater is able to offer the more compelling argument.