Actively listen and respond to your opponent's case or critiques. I don't like spreading. I award speaker points mainly as a reflection of these things. As a judge, I intervene only when absolutely necessary. I keep a loose flow in your Comments section, so you can see which parts of your case stand out to a judge, and which ones need to be presented more clearly. Comments in Italics are feedback for your reference. If you see that I missed part of your case in my notes, consider that part something you need to be more clear on (either verbally more audible & intelligible, or make the argument clearer to follow).

Theory

I want solid warrants and actual clash. I will not vote for you if you do not engage your opponent's case.

Topicality

This is the only "rule" of the game. Be clear on your taglines and how they relate to the resolution. Topicality is a procedural requirement, so don't use it to waste time. "Aff dropped topicality, so you must vote Neg" won't win my vote. I evaluate theory before topicality, but you must still be topical. Framework is vital to topicality.

LD specifics
Aff - Be topical. I want to know what your method is and does at the end of the round. Explain to me why the Resolution should be affirmed, and clearly refute the Neg's case.

Neg - Stay topical. I want to hear your negation of the Resolution as well as your refutation of the Aff.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.