Hello. I'm a former debater for Cal Poly SLO, Sacramento State, and Monterey Trail High. I have competed in college open policy, college BP, and high school parli (but see #2). I am an attorney (but see #6).

1. I have no preference for debate styles, so please debate however you like. Just make clear what my role is as the judge in the round and what voting for you means or signifies.

-

2. Assume I don't know your authors/arguments. I am not a lay judge, but I am also not a judge who cuts cards or researches arguments for the topic. Do not assume that I am familiar with the literature that you are reading or the arguments that you are running. I have a fair understanding of critical theory in general as well as the kritiks common to debate. But in general, you should assume that I am unfamiliar with your argument.

-

3. Impact comparison is very important to me. Provide me with a metric for weighing different impact claims and prove to me that your impact is more weighty and important than your opponent's.

-

4. I probably will not adopt your framework if you used it to avoid a debate. I don't like when framework is used as a way to hide. I am more likely to reward teams who directly clash with their opponent's argument, whatever it may be. If you do choose to go all-in on framework in the 2NR or 2AR, you must justify why you chose to give zero recognition to your opponent's argument, because you are asking me to do the same for you. Focusing primarily on the "rules" of debate is not enough.

-

5. I'm unlikely to vote for theory arguments unless I'm convinced that the abuse or unfairness in the round was strong. If you are going for these arguments in the rebuttals, please slow down and clearly identify what unfairness/abuse occurred in round and explain why that conduct creates bad debate not only in this round but for debate in general. I won't vote for it if I don't understand it.

-

6. I don't expect you to "know" the law any more than your peers. I don't expect you to be as familiar with the law as a law student or lawyer would. In other words, please don't worry about running or having to respond to legal arguments in front of me. I am judging your argumentative abilities, not your knowledge of jurisprudence.

-

7. Try to have fun! Debate is intense, but it can actually be enjoyable. A positive room is the best way to spend time in debate, and I'll do my best to keep ours light-hearted. Mistakes can happen, and that's ok. Try not to get too frustrated; there will always be another speech, another round to try again. Assume that your partner and opponents, like you, are debating in good faith, are probably nervous, are trying their best, and are doing this activity because they want to. I would even suggest cheering on your opponents, even if they've out-debated you, and especially if you've out-debated them--try it, it's fun. Don't be disrespectful, don't be unethical, and do not impugn anyone's dignity or humanity.

-

Thanks, and best of luck.

I am the type of judge that will be giving feedback based on what I was taught about Public Speaking, I also value the historical points of view of the topic. For example, I am a History major and Spanish Teacher and will be looking for facts and dates and also examples of historical past history. I also will be looking for specific information that will be adheareing to the actual topic this year of Artificial Intelligence. The aff I will be looking for a continuance of the plan and also will be looking for specific details and dates and facts to past history. The Neg I will be looking for the best counter argument possible with leads into K's and also different topics to further enhance their argument against the plan. I want to see Artificial Intelligence in the forefront of where the world is going and also using past history to further establish how and why Artificial Intelligence can be a detriment to the plan.

I also believe that the inflection and the voice of the team and the Cross x questions I will also take into consideration in my judgement of the rounds that I will be judging for. I am excited to be judging on a National Debate scale and this will be very meaningful for me to bring back to my school and learn how to judge rounds as a judge for BAUDL as well.

Lastly, I would prefer to be able to judge the continuation of the argument rather than the speed of the debate. I feel that if I can understand what the team is saying and with their inflection and the best arguments come from their evidence rather than from the speed of the debate. I want to understand what someone is saying and not so concerned about how fast that they can speak. I come from a Public Speaking background with FFA and that the best argument and ability to connect the dots with their evidence is key rather than how fast they get facts out.