My experience includes 4 years of LD debate throughout high school as well as extemporaneous speaking and congressional debate. In college I competed on a national circuit in parliamentary style debate, LD Policy debate, and extemporaneous speaking. I’ve intermittently judged high school LD, policy, and congressional debate for the past 10 years. I consider my paradigm to be part tabula rasa, part games. I try to let the debaters determine the type of round it will be and I will vote on whatever the best and most logical arguments are. If a debater is able to logically defend their position as the most advantageous or the least disadvantageous, then I will vote on it regardless of how unrealistic or absurd it may be. I enjoy Kritiks, but they need to be well understood and ran with intention. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it links and you can defend it. I will vote on topicalities but I prefer to hear attempts at creative argumentation. I don’t mind speed but I prefer articulation over a larger quantity of arguments and my flow will be reflective of how clearly the speaker is communicating their arguments.

I competed in policy debate (CX), Lincoln Douglas, Student Congress, and Extemporaneous speaking in High School at a high level in the '80's. I debated for the University of Oklahoma while pursuing an engineering degree and had a good deal of success at the national level. That would probably label me a "Traditional" judge. In some ways that is true. I DO NOT like "Open CX" and will not allow it if I am the only judge on the panel. I'm completely okay with new arguments in the 2NC and new evidence in rebuttals (when did that change?). Kritik's hadn't been invented yet when I debated.

However, I've seen (and done) about everything you can do in a debate round to try and pull out a win, so I can be open minded. My default framework for policy debate is a “policy maker” paradigm, so will always look to weigh the significance of affirmative harms solved against the risk of negative disadvantages. You will be well served to remember this is how I was trained to think.

I will vote on Topicality, but don't like to unless the affirmative is clearly trying to skirt the topic.

I dislike “theory” debates, but understand they have their place and in some cases are absolutely necessary. I really wish all debaters would take a class on "Fiat" as it is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in policy debate.

I'm learning how Kritik's work and think in some cases they make for an interesting debate. However, most teams don't really understand Kritiks (on either side) which makes for bad debate. If you want to win the Kritik, your best chance is to be the one most knowledgeable on the supporting literature and be able to explain it to me in "layman's" terms.

I love case side arguments, good analysis, clash, well-constructed links on Disadvantages, and effective cross-x lines of attack. I despise listening to debaters read briefs they did not write or do not understand.

I don't mind speed as long as it's not a crutch for bad argumentation. Keep in mind I only judge debate periodically, so you will want to look for verbal cues that I am understanding you. Clarity is key. I've heard college debaters go 400 wpm I could understand perfectly, and Jr High debaters go 200 wpm I had no idea what they were saying. Signposting (which appears to be a lost art) is extremely helpful and will help you tremendously in making sure I understand your arguments. I don't want to be included on speech doc's. If an argument is not understood by me in the round it does not exist.

My wish is for everyone to enjoy debate for what it is - a beautiful game that allows each participant to express their creativity through words. Good luck!

I'm a huge fan of competitive speech and debate with deep appreciation for the analytical and public speaking skills honed through participation.

I debated competitively in LD, CX, and Student Congress in high school (dinosaurs may have roamed the earth then) and also competed in CEDA policy debate in college. In addition, I enjoyed success in domestic extemp and original oratory. I competed at the NSDA (then it was NFL) national speech tournament 3 times and have a couple of state championships under my belt.

Paradigm: I’m open-mined and love good clash. I can reasonably hang with speed as long as an attempt is made to enunciate; however, my preference is for effective communication and analysis over spread. I want a clean flow and strong signposting. Please make voting issues clear. In CX, I love the stock issues, compelling advantages with solvency, and great, applicable (not generic) disads.

Regardless of the debate type, my favorite rounds are those that include more thinking and direct clash and less generic speed reading. Dropped issues won’t win a ballot, so pull arguments through that you want to be voting issues and point out opponent drops. It's totally okay to concede arguments you are losing -- you don't have to win 100% of the flow to win the round. I'm a fan of compelling persuasion, smart arguments, and a willingness to have some fun.

I did policy debate for Jenks for four years, now I'm debating for OU. Put me on the email chain: supersalok@gmail.com.

I read both critical arguments and policy ones, so just read whatever you want. Good case debate is my bread and butter. I think debate is both a game and a place to learn things but you can convince me otherwise.