I am an experienced parent judge (3+ years) and most familiar with traditional debate but if it is within the rules I will do my best to judge it fairly. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. You'll get dropped and the appropriate tournament officials will be notified if you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Good luck and have fun!

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!

Experience with LD and PF

-Good with Speed & spreading

-Looking for opponents who give me full expanded thoughts and examples; excellent POI’s and cross exams

-for me, debates are won during the crosses

-ask thoughtful questions and find holes in opponents arguments

-flay judge: competed in high school (07-09) and have been judging lots of online tournaments since the pandemic. Can flow fairly well, but some of the jargon has gone out the window in the past few years, so laymen's terms are preferred when it comes to technically things. I have a college education, but some speech specific language, I don't remember.

Traditional judge
Speak clearly and convince me of your side of the case

My name is Jackie Hertzel. My pronouns are she/her. I am a traditional judge, in my 4th year of judging. I take my notes on an online flow during the round. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. I appreciate off time roadmaps, calling out dropped arguments and noting voting issues. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. I am not a fan of spreading. Good luck and have fun!

Hi! I'm Matt (He/Him). I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 162 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.

Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24

email: Matthew.hornak@gmail.com

TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.

NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:

1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.

2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run out of the ordinary things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).

3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments. If your opponent calls for evidence, you've got one minute to produce it -- I will heavily consider dropping you full stop for not being able to do so. I don't need you guys to do email chains but I also don't mind them, so do what you want.

4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.

5. Cross-Apply. If you are going to say cross-apply a contention, you need to say more about why I prefer your contention over your opponent. I simply won't flow it and treat it as a drop if you just say "cross-apply" and leave it at that.

NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:

1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.

2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.

3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.

OVERALL:

Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.

I am a traditional lay judge who is new to judging. I'm very lay, meaning you should explain your arguments thoroughly while also being clear and concise. I will be voting off of whichever side leaves me with the strongest argument by the end of the round, defends their case while putting strong and extended responses on their opponent's case, and proves to me why their impacts outweigh that of their opponents.

"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3

General

I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.

Speed

I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.

Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff

I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.

Policy

Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).

I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.

Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.

Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.

*FOR BRONX JV 10/16-10/18*

It's been a while since I've debated, so go heavy on the definitions and clarifications. I'm okay with anything you're BOTH comfortable with--this is JV, so no spreading if you both don't agree to it, etc. I was a pretty hefty framework debater, so I'll appreciate those rounds. Tech over truth in general. You'll get dropped if you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I try to give speaker points liberally, bonus points if you squeeze in a Star Wars meme or reference. If you have any questions about the round, or debate in general, feel free to email me at zjl8@pitt.edu. The most important thing is that you're having fun and learning, so try to relax and enjoy the experience!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

Hi, my name is Neale Misquitta and I am a senior at The Pennsylvania State University studying Energy Engineering with a minor in Environmental Engineering. I have not competed in collegiate debate but in high school, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary debate primarily. I also competed in Congress, Extemp, and Worlds. I have experience judging all of these as well as Public Forum and Policy.

It's been a number of years since I've been active in the debate community. Just run what you're good at and tell me why you won at the end.

I competed for four years in high school and coached for six years after that. On aff, I generally ran something mildly critical, and on neg I ran the Cap K just about every round.

Make my life easy and write my ballot for me in the rebuttals.

Hello!

My name is Chinaza Ruth Okonkwo and I am a junior at the University of Pennsylvania. I was a competitive debater and I did a speech in high school.

Debate: I did JV and varsity LD in high school for 2 years (in Cali). During my time as a debater, I was ranked 10th in California at the State Tournament and won the 32nd Stanford National Invitational JV Bracket. I competed in the national circuit and I am a traditional judge and debater with a hint of progressivity. I am a tabula rasa judge, which basically means I'll buy any argument as long as you are able to convince me of its purpose in the round and create a really nuanced argument and case. If you're going to run theory do it well. The same thing applies to Kritiks. Don't just read a block of text at me. I am a big fan of the philosophy aspect of LD so you'll definitely get lots of points if you can successfully incorporate your values throughout your case. Speed: NO SPREADING especially if your opponent is not okay with it. Flowing: Please sign post but I'm a pretty flay judge. Cross X: Everything in CX counts for me but only if you bring it back up in your constructive so if your opponent makes a concession and you don't bring it up it doesn't matter anymore but if you do I'll use it going forward. I like aggressive CX but don't be rude. You will get dropped. Prep Time: I allow flex prep.

Basically, be nice and have fun. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

I have been coaching and judging for 4 years. I am used to traditional debate in a small circuit. I am able to follow spread within reason, but am more concerned with the effort of your argument. I am not impressed by gimmicks or minutiae. I want to see a strong value in LD and good, logical, well-supported contentions in both LD and PF. I expect debaters to rebut contentions of their competitors and prove to me that they should win because their contentions hold.

Any cases built on any xenophobia will be disregarded and brought up in tab. I expect you to be respectful and understanding, especially during online debates.

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

I have been our school's coach/administrator of our speech and debate team for many years. I am also an English teacher.

When judging debate, I would like to hear every word, to follow every argument. I do not like fast-talking because it leaves me guessing what I heard. I would like the two teams/two sides to listen to each other and ask questions and rebut in ways that show good listening. I enjoy clash. I enjoy when clash brings a debate round to greater levels of thinking and crisper points being made on each side. I like when the teams/sides help me, the judge, better see my way to an RFD. (Of course, I have to agree, but I enjoy when sides/teams state in logical and intelligent ways why they should win and show when doing so that they have a solid grasp on what just happened in the round.)

When judging speech, I appreciate the commitment that students show in constructing a well-organized speech and preparing to perform it. I appreciate the energy, pathos, honesty, charm, intelligence, drive to connect with an audience, and all-around skills of a well-delivered speech.

Regarding literary interpretation, I am an English teacher; I love it all.

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

My preferences are pretty simple so I'll keep this fairly short.

The biggest thing for me will always be civility and respect. Always, always keep it civil, in crossfire, in POIs, in questioning, in whatever it is, there is no need for hostility or rude behavior. When that happens, you're not having fun and I'm not having fun. So just be kind and be respectful towards each other.

Aside from that, I always appreciate clarity. Use road maps and signposting and anything else to make things clear and make my flow easier. Give me voting issues, I love those. Tell me why you won.

I will also always be in favor of strong argumentation and impact weighing. Give me impacts and tell me why yours matter more than your opponent's. Evidence alone is not enough to win you rounds, surround it with solid argumentation and tell me why it matters.

I can keep up with pretty speedy speech but I never feel like there is a need for excessive speed or spreading. I can't flow what I can't hear so just keep that in mind. Do feel free to go faster than a normal conversation though, I get it. You know what's excessive speed-wise.

Overall, I want you to enjoy the round and I want to enjoy it too, so just keep things civil, make my job easier, and have fun!

All debate styles - I do not read shared files until the end if I need to refer to a piece of evidence. Debate is supposed to be understood not read. I do not mind speed but make sure it is enunciated and intelligible. Watch my body language, if you have any questions if I am understanding you....Head down and flowing your speech...I understand you. Watching you without a pen in my hand....you are not making any sense to me and I can not follow your arguments.

Policy (CX) - I am a stock issue judge. Focus on the stock issues and why the AFF does or does not satisfy them. Spreading is okay but make sure your arguments make sense. Do not start a bunch of arguments in the 1 NC just to drop most of them by 2 NC or the 1NR. There are very few times an extinction argument truly works. Do not run one just to run it. Most of the time, it makes the NEG look desperate.

Lincoln - Douglas (LD) - Focus on your value and value criterion. Be clear on why your value criterion is better than your opponent's or why you satisfy your opponent's value criterion better than they do.

Public Forum (PF) - While it is easy to have most everything prepared and ready before the round, do not forget to address your opponents' argument and point out where you are different and why your side is the better choice.

If you have further questions please ask me before the round starts.

I am a fair judge, looking for cogent arguments. Please no spreading, which does not do well virtually. Coach of Germantown Academy since 2021. Treat each other respectfully in my room, please.

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!