[[Adams, Emiliano]]

  My Philosophy for judging is simple. I look for the debaters to tell me how I should vote. I go into a debate with a clear and open mind leaving my personal ideals aside. All agruments should be clear and to the point with facts to support them. Speaking fast so that no one can keep up or understand your case does not sit well with me. Doing such leads me to believe that the debater is not secure with their case and they are trying to rush through and confuse everyone listening. Finally I look to the debaters to be professinal and respectful. 

I have experience debating in LD, Congress, and Public Forum. My judging history is inn Public Forum, and LD. 

I've been in forensics for 7 years. I'll believe pretty much anything you tell me and I default to a net-ben paradigm unless I'm told differently. I like speed and procedurals but I don't expect you to do anything you aren't comfortable with. I like big impact stories. I appreciate when you weigh them out for me. It's hard for me to vote on RVIs, there has to be proven abuse that happened in round, that everyone in the room saw. I value the performative part of debate so I'll expect you to speak clearly and be engaging. The rounds I enjoy most are respectful but slightly snarky and fun! 

This is my first year of judging debate and I've participated in 6 tournaments this year. I've judged mostly public forum (both novice and varsity) and a few LD rounds. I was not on the debate team in high school so the exposure I've gotten this year is the sum of my debate experience. 

In general:

• I'm ok with speed, if you enunciate
• I like a logical flow of evidence with clear ties to impacts. Don't just tell me facts, tell me why they are important to your argument.
• I'm impressed with debaters that can calmly and respectfully counter the other team and conquer with logic over emotional slander.
• High speaker points go to those that can talk to me, not at me. Be authentic, relaxed, and have empathy toward me rather than just reciting facts.
• I appreciate good summary speeches that hit the highlights of why I should vote for you and why your arguments and impacts outweigh your opponents.

Director of Debate at Coppell High School.

4 years of debate high school - (policy)

4 years of debate college (parliamentary debate and NFA LD)

I am well versed in policy debate and consider my default paradigm to be that of a policymaker. I took third in the country in LD in college and was an All-American Parliamentary Debater. I can handle speed just please slow down a bit and enunciate your tag lines and author name for me. Please weigh impacts and explain why you are winning. I hate feeling like an interventionist when that happens.

Scroll to the bottom for LD and PF judging.

Policy Paradigm

I have a masters degree in international relations with a concentration in national security studies. I enjoy impacts that focus on these and politics. I have also worked in the political world including as a member of a presidential campaign's debate team. All of this is to say that if it comes down to competing claims of what the evidence says at the end of the round and you ask me to look at it I will read everything even the ununderlined parts of the card to determine what the author's intent is. That is the only way I know how to ejudicate completing claims of a high school student about what evidence says.

I am not a fan of performance debate/project affs. I am fine with kritikal affs provided that they are topical and have actual solvency. 

Kritiks are fine as long as you have a viable textual alternative and alternative solvency. Yes there is a difference. If you tell me the ballot is a tool I will agree that it is a tool to demonstrate I met my judging obligation but that is about it.

I prefer weighing of arguments rather than just throwing out whatever you can in the hope that it will stick. If you run Topicality explain to me what ground you have actually lost instead of just saying "T's a voter".

Ultimately just give me impacts. I would prefer direct clash on substance rather than getting stuck in the minutae of a theory debate unless we are trying to make comparative worlds of plan versus the world of the kritik.

PF 

I prefer impacts akin to policy here. My only caveat to that is make sure that you follow the rules regarding specific plans and counterplans. Alternative advocacies are fine as long as you can justify why it is not a counterplan.

On that point, familiarize yourself with policy theory about what a counterplan structurally must have in order to be viable.

LD

1) Makes sure there is clash with the value and criteria and that your framework functions together with your case.

2) I am more than fine with plans in LD as well as kritiks. You should make sure though that you read my policy paradigm as to what has to be part of the kritik in order for me to evaluate.

3) I am fine with speed but if I can't understand I will say clear once. If you choose not to adapt at that point speaker points come off because you didn't adapt.

Assistant Coach at Harker.

PF Paradigm

1) Everyone wins an argument. My job becomes difficult when you don't tell me why the argument you won is more important than the argument your opponent won.

2) The second speaking team must respond to the their opponents case, as well as the responses their opponent presented in the first rebuttal, during their rebuttal.

3) Any arguments you want me to vote on should be in the summary and final focus.

4) Please tell me the number of the contention that you are referencing rather than just the argument's subject area.

5) If you are a paperless PF team you should have a viewing computer or be willing to fully give up your own computer if the opposing team wishes to view a piece of evidence you brought up in the round. If you are not comfortable doing this, just put the evidence on a flashdrive so that that your opponent has ready access to it.

Debated LD - 1997 - 2001

Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present

Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017

I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I am the head coach of my school's program. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.

3. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

Debate:

Four years HS PF experience including Nationals, 5A State Championship, +/ Former PF coach at Bigham/ Judge at many local tournaments as well as several national comps.

Paradigm-type items:

Speed, jargon, etc. are all chill with me.

Please give me a roadmap at the beginning of your speeches!

Clear and straightforward warrants, links, and impacts for your arguments so I can give you credit for them on the flow.

Please cite sources in a way that allows me to verify the veracity of your arguments and information.

Always remember that debate is an activity about learning and growing, not just competition!

I will time and give time signals if you want me to, but I prefer to let you all do it.

Education:

I am graduating from the U of U in May with a B.S in Political Science as well as a B.S in International Studies, attending graduate school in the Fall. My primary areas of interest within my field are comparative politics, sub-state actors, MENA terrorism, democracy, American institutions, +.

Professional:

Utah Democratic Party - S.L.C, Utah

Creative Learning – Washington, D.C

Hinckley Institute of Politics - S.L.C, Utah

Utah Independent News - Saint George, Utah

Good luck and have fun!

Don't spread. Make your links. Cost-benefit analysis is everything. Puns are always appreciated 

Last updated 2/12/24

As a judge, I view competitive academic debate as an educational rhetoric game. I want you to have the debate you want to have; I try not to intervene if your debate meets two *principles:

1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my personal interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to reconciling interpretations, but I'd rather do it prior to the first speech. I am less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” I believe maintaining stable competitive parameters is necessary to maintain fairness.

2. I deeply value access to speech and debate. By default, I will do my best to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity.

If you’re unclear on these points, please ask. I'm happy to chat about it.

* While these personal value principles are strongly-held, unless a "violation" seems especially egregious - and in the absence of in-round articulation - I'll be reluctant to intervene. Again, I want you to have the debate you want to have.

My preferences:

I like strong logic. I like it when debaters are considerate of one another and bring good will. I love good humor. I love creative, nuanced, and uncommon arguments.

Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific theory questions, ask me before the round.

Speaker points:
I see speaker points as an opportunity to reward individual oration. Things I value: strong verbal and nonverbal performance, audience/judge adaptation, round vision, and clarity & consistency of structure, content, and presentation.

My limitations:
I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of middle school, high school, and college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I have some difficulty flowing and comprehending top-speed arguments. If you're unsure what my threshold is, look for visual cues or simply ask. Spread at your own risk. If you’ve been doing Policy debate since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Run what you want, but bring me with you. Don't assume I'm deep in the lit.

Rebuttals:
I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new; If an argument is brand new and the opponent doesn't have a chance to respond to the argument, I will not consider the argument in my decision. If it's Parli, call the point of order.

Speech-y Debate Events (ie SPAR and IPDA):
While the guidelines above apply to my approach to SPAR and IPDA, I will not be strictly a "flow judge." I'll take a more holistic approach in my evaluation. This is a public speaking event, so I'll take the role of more of a lay audience member and less of a panopticon than in other forms of debate. I will still flow the debate.

Discretionary information about me:I'm a night owl. I love vintage motorcycles and guitar amps, karaoke, Mario Kart 64, waterfalls, and podcasts. I've been sorted into House Slytherin.

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

My debate background is in policy, but at this point, I have experience judging PF and LD as well. Feel free to to do whatever you want and make any arguments you can clearly explain and effectively justify. I am open to anything and enjoy thoughtful and creative approaches to debate as long as you are not being rude or offensive. If you're being a jerk, I will dock speaks.

If I am judging your round, make sure you do the following:

-Keep track of time: I will not be timing any of your speeches or prep, so time yourselves and your opponents-I'd prefer avoiding situations where no one knows how much prep time is left or how long a person has been speaking. Also, please respect when the timer goes off-If your time runs out during prep, I expect you to begin your speech promptly, and begin any of your remaining speeches right away. If your time runs out during your speech, please stop speaking.

-Share evidence quickly: I won't count getting your speech doc over to your opponent as prep time, but please be prepared to do so immediately once you end prep (the document should already be saved at this point). I'm pretty understanding with technical difficulties you may encounter, but you should be able to resolve these quickly and I will get annoyed if you take too long to share evidence. Please include me on any evidence email chains as well.

-Assume I don't know about the resolution: This is super important because I am not consistently judging the same type of debate throughout the year and I have very likely not done any research on the topic. If I'm judging you in PF or LD, be aware that it's the first round at a tournament on a new topic, it's possible that l think it's still the previous topic. This means that you should be as thorough as possible in explaining things and if you're going to be using acronyms to refer to agencies, departments, organizations, laws, policies, etc. in your speeches, you should tell me what it is at least once. If it's unclear, I either won't know what you are talking about, or have to spend time during your speeches to google it.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before your round. No need to shake my hand.

Former ToC competitor (2009-2012) and Former Coach for The Harker School (2013-16). Been in out rounds and have coached students in outrounds at: Harvard (&RR), Cal Berkeley (&RR), Tournament of Champions, National Tournament, Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Golden Desert, Stanford, and District Qualifiers in multiple states.

Do whatever you want in the round, it’s your debate. Just make sure everyone is being professional and furthering the round to the best of their ability.

I’m not going to do a whole bunch of work for you regarding linking and impact calculus so make sure to clearly articulate your KVIs towards the end.

There’s a good chance I will call for some cards so please make sure to have everything available! (NSDA Nats 23, I’ve seen a lot of teams just create an email thread and send evidence that way. As long as I can still see the evidence either way is fine! My email is Titanpride4949@gmail.com)

Congress Paradigm - I have been judging congress on a national level for over 30 years and look to the following criteria when judging competitors.

I appreciate the debate element of congress but there is a difference between congress and debate. I look for focus on the key issuesrather than speed and coverage of all issues raised. Empirical evidence is crucial when it comes to persuading on policy issues that have the potential to impact millions of lives. I appreciate good rhetoric but it is no substitution for real analysis and evidence. If you are speaking later in the round, I will look for crystallization and the bringing to light and analysis of the key issues in the round.

Never forget you are a legislator and this should be evident in your arguments, language and decorum.

I look for depth of analysis, solid logic and lucid reasoning.

Uitlize your evidence without being driven by it.

Present ideas by countering/refuting your opponents.

Communicate clearly with organized thoughts and professional attitude.

Dont:

Spread

Interrupt for no reason

Show disrespect for your opponents and judge

1. I can't vote for you if I (a) can't understand you, or (b) can't write down what you're saying. Slow.Down. 

2. I am an attorney. This means I believe in logical reasoning. This means I belive that debate should be a world in which evidence actually says what you say it says. I will call for evidence and I will drop you if your interpretation of the evidence is illogical -- that means you're intentionally misconstruing it and I can't trust anything you say. 

3. I am not a former debater, so I am not beholden to the flow. Just because your opponents dropped an argument, doesn't mean I have to "award" you the argument. You have to tell me why (other than the argument being dropped) I should consider that argument a voting issue...

4. ...which brings me to the most important point. TELL ME WHY I SHOULD PREFER YOUR ARGUMENTS OVER THEIRS. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. 

5. BE CIVIL. I don't want to listen to cattiness, brattiness and general jerkishness. I will put down my pen, stop listening to the debate, and drop you on this alone.

I graduated high school in 2012, and I debated both policy and public forum on the national circuit with College Prep in Oakland, CA. Been judging on and off since,

- I try not to ask for evidence after the round, but I will if i think it’s necesssry or if you ask me to. PF evidence standards are terrible and need to be improved, and if I read something that is obviously powertagged, I will not evaluate it.

- Speaking of evidence, make sure to explain the warrants in your ev when there is clash. “My card says 3%, yours says 2%” is not an argument. Neither is “but mine is newer!!!”.

- PF is getting more tech. I get that. I’m not mad at it. But if you speak fast for no reason and you sound like sh!t, your speaks will suffer. If you use debate words incorrectly, I’ll be mad.

- I give obvious clues about how I feel. If I’m frowning, I don’t like what you’re saying. If I’m not writing anything down that means I can’t understand you or I don’t care to notate what you are saying. There’s probably a reason for that. Don’t be surprised later on.

- Make sure you do some good crystallization & weighing in the final focus. Don’t go for everything and do some actual impact calc / comparison. I feel like a lot of PF debates these days have too many arguments in them for their own good. There just isn’t enough time in the speeches, and if I have to do weighing myself, you might find that I disagree with your unspoken impact calc. You’ll be a sad panda if that happens.

- don’t be a dbag. If you are, prefer humor over obvious personal attacks.

- I don’t have strict rules about new args in grand cross q or final snaq. They may or may not be evaluated, depending on how relevant to the debate I think they are or how obvious they are given previous args. 9/10 times they probably won’t. Explain why they should or shouldn’t be if you’re worried about that kind of thing.

- frontlining isn’t required. You should still probably do it.

- extending defense in the summary isn’t required. You should still probably do it.

- usually, the role of the ballot is pretty obvious, per the wording of the res. Most PF resolutions are worded to assume the adoption of some policy proposal by some actor. If you think it isn’t that way, debate it in round or ask about my (usually immutable) interp. If you’re reading critical args that require a different than obvious interpretation of the res / obvious role of ballot, I expect you to explain that in round.

- plz bring flow paper without lines and some extra pens. I forgot mine in the hotel room. V sorry. May or may not give you back your pen(s)

I am a tabula rasa critic and I believe the room belongs to the debaters. The judge’s function is to allow the adversarial process to occur then make a decision based on what I observed in the round. Follow your framework to complete your syllogism, provide reasons to prefer your interpretations of ground and evidence when conflict (clash) exists. Presumption to neg. was always apart of a debates foundation, but I’ll be as much of a blank slate as I can be.

Have fun and be nice. If not from your hart, at least knowing speaker points break ties :)

I have participated in parliamentary debate for 2 years and enjoy a debate with good clash.

I do have my biases and prefer realistic argumentation, but I understand that debate is a game and will vote where you tell me to as long as the analysis is well warranted. Tell me why I should vote for your argument or why I should not vote on your opponents argument. 

I prefer terminalized impacts and impact calculus when I make my final decision.

Please stay on the flow, and make it easy for everyone to follow the debate. Do not spread your opponents out of the round.

I have been coaching debate for 37 years. I am not in the least bit progressive in any way.

My preferences are extremely traditional. I want the round to be slow and conversational; I view LD from the value/criterion approach, and policy arguments like plans, CP's, PICs, etc are out of bounds. I prefer a whole rez approach to the topic, and I expect the topic to be debated. I do not believe in disclosure theory or theory arguments in general. I also do not wish to evaluate or listen to identity politics and post-modern theory. I also do not endorse false norms like "flex-prep", performance, poetry, and "role of the ballot" arguments.

The most important thing for you to know is that I have a moderate hearing loss. I can hear normal, conversational tones and volumes just fine, but I cannot hear spreading at all despite being an experienced  college debater. Philosophically, I also consider spreading to be completely antithetical to what debate is supposed to be: a communications activity based on fair exchange of ideas. This is meant to educate and assay the truth out of the exchange. Spreading is meant to confuse and simply put out so many arguments that one impact gets dropped - not meant to be an intellectual exchange, but to sneak something past. Don't spread in front of me unless you want to lose.

I don't like bogus timesuck procedurals. Don't run a procedural unless the other team is really actually making an abusive argument. That being said, I dislike abusive, unethical, unfair arguments even more than timesuck procedurals. For example: don't randomly select part of someone's flow and falsely accuse them of using racist/sexist/unethical argumentation unless they're doing it. And don't make arguments with racist/sexist/unethical warrants in front of me.

I want a competitive debate based on ethical, fair and genuine argumentation about the merits and demerits of the respective sides of the resolution in the round. Don't just say you turn an argument/impact/link - show me how logic does that. If you do those and don't drop any arguments, you will probably win in front of me.