I am a judge with four years of experience in public forum and parliamentary debate. I promise I'm not a mommy judge. If you'd like me to vote for you, please give me a framework! And don't just give a framework in your constructive speech and then forget about it, link back to it!

I will never vote for those supporting hate speech, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, ageism, or ableism, nor will I vote for those relying on spreading or lacking a traditional case, or something resembling it.

Remember that your main job here is to be an orator- if I cannot understand you or if a layperson could not at least get the general gist of your arguments, you've failed at your job as an orator and I will not vote for you. Speak loud, speak clearly, and speak at a reasonable speed.

Please make sure to rebut all of your opponent's contentions (or at least the important ones, don't waste more than a few seconds of your time on silly, irrelevant contentions, I will know if they're unimportant).

I don't really care about menial problems like misnaming cards or saying "my partner and I negate the resolution" when you're really on aff- let's focus on the important stuff, please.

When the timer goes off, your time is up. You get to finish your sentence and that's it. Both teams should have their evidence readily available. Also, only use credible sources. If you go around citing InfoWars or FOX News opinion pieces or someone's Wordpress blog, I'm not gonna buy that card.

In parting, be a decent person! No one likes hostile rounds or rounds where entire groups of people are attacked. Debate should be fun, I'll be sad if it isn't. Don't make me sad!

My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).

Me: I was a policy debater in high school.

How I decide who wins the debate:

I look at the important decisions in the round and decide based on who convinces me the best. I do everything I can to leave my bias outside of the round and to pretend I have zero knowledge on the topic/resolution.

I am looking for arguments/evidence to be warranted, and expect rebutted arguments/defenses to move the argument forward, and to not to defend with a repeat of what you said before(it’s been attacked, tell me why the attack is deficient). Use your logic skills here to do this. I love a great argument (especially negating your opponent’s argument/evidence) that is a result of your critical analysis and not just a card you found in your research. If everyone drops an argument, so do i. If you pick up that an argument has been dropped, especially an important one, please let me know that you are on top of that.

Evidence should be empirical.

I think the beauty of debate is the research & the critical thinking. I want to see that reflected in your debate and not arguments based off internet searches of someone else's critical thinking (it shows).

Big Claims: if you attempt to argue a really big claim/contention (the resolution will result in anarchy, totalitarianism, imminent nuclear war), back it up well with a great piece(s) of evidence and convince me. Opponent: don’t fall for “hyperbole is business as usual”. Use this to your advantage and bring the argument back into reality.

Utilization of alternative methods (e.g. redefining the universal definition of words listed in the resolution, theory, k, etc, etc.): I believe that everyone involved in the round has made an unwritten contract with one another that we are all here for the spirit of the activity and resolution/topic as designed. However, I acknowledge that sometimes, especially in the resolution/topic, "as designed" may be unintentionally deficient and an alternative method is a reasonable strategy.

Speed. I flow the round and as long as I am able to understand the argument that is made, both in coherency, and annunciation, I am fine with spreading. But unless you are good at it, I suggest you slow down and focus on communicating your message. Spreading quickly becomes a distraction if you are terrible at it. Don’t undermine yourself. Remember: you have studied the topic at length. you are more familiar with the topic than I am. Your job is to communicate to me, the person (you should assume) who is unfamiliar with the topic. Refrain from casual acronyms, etc., that you use with your teammates. I haven't been part of those conversations.

CrossX. i am not judging you on anything that happens in the CrossX. If you make an argument here, it counts as nothing to me unless you bring it up in your neg construction or rebuttal. I prefer crossXs that set you up for your next turn rather than the theatrics that can happen in CrossX. Please do not berate your opponent into submission of the desired response. I understand the need to interrupt so that your opponent does not eat up your crossX time, but I ask you to do this effectively to advance your case, not as an intimidation strategy.

GOOD LUCK and HAVE FUN!