Hi!

I debated all throughout high school, mostly LD but I am familiar with the other formats.

I don't care about speed as long as you're not tripping up a lot. Tag teaming is fine. I do flow CX and vote on it so keep that in mind. I'll primarily vote on impacts which outweigh the amount of arguments and evidence every time.

No need to ask if I'm ready, I'll be ready unless I say something.

I'm a coach focusing primarily on PF and LD. My preference is on a traditional style of LD with strong connections of contentions to your V/C. My ballot will normally go to whoever can show they best link up to the  winning value in the round (hint: try to show me why you can achieve both).I'm ok with a fair amount of speed (8/10), but if you want your tag lines to make my flow keep them short or slow down a bit for them.

There is not a huge progressive focus on our circuit, so I'm not overly experienced with progressive LD styles, but I've judged a fair amount of CX and am not entirely closed off to the idea of progressive strategies. I'm not overly familiar with a lot of the theory arguments that are being run, so don't expect me to grasp your advanced esoteric theory arguments without explaining them well (please share cases with me if possible). Additionally, if you a re running CPs be sure you can prove uniqueness, or if running Ks they are not absurd. I want reasonable arguments, and the less reasonable they are, the easier they are to be taken down.

Hi! I am new to competitive debate judging, but I have assigned and graded both single and team debates in my classes.

I would consider myself a lay judge (get rid of jargon!). While I have a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice and am a university professor, one valuable skill is the ability to translate technical research into language that is accessible to all. It's called Translational Research and this is how we educate communities and policymakers about important topics. If they can't understand our language, there's no chance of convincing them to allow research to inform public policy.

I have testified at legislative hearings for a number of years. I frequently only have 3 minutes to state my case in my testimony and can only comment when asked questions. But, I must be aware of my speaking speed because, if legislators cannot follow my logic, reasoning, and evidence, my goal of providing meaningful input into public policy is lost. Knowing what your most important points are to make your case, successfully defend it, and defeat the opposing view is an important skill and allows you to slow things down and control the debate. While I am aware that you have a lot to say and only a little time, the faster you talk, the less likely I am to capture all of your important points in my flow. So, if I can't follow you, you can't win (calm down the spread!).

As a researcher, I place great value on logic, evidence, and sources. As someone whose research is used in public policy, I place great value on impact.

All in all:

-use accessible language and minimize jargon

-focus on your most important points in support and defense of your case and against the opposition

-talk at a speed that is faster than normal conversation but not at spread pace

-present logical arguments, use your evidence, and cite your sources

-Remember, you can be competitive and still have fun!

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

Hi- I am very excited to judge competitive debate. I have graded both single and double debate. I place great value on logic, evidence/ data, and sources. While there is a lot to cover in a short amount of time, please slow down so I can understand and capture the key points of your flow.

Constructive: clear arguments, rehearsed reading, eye contact, logical development of points, and summary to emphasize crucial postions

Cross Examination: clarify the opponents position, ask questions that advance their ideas and position, attack opponents assumptions and probe logic

Overall: use understandable and accessible language/ minimize acronyms and jargon, focus on your most important points and build your case against the opposition clearly, speaking cadence must be audible and understandable, sequence arguments and evidence logically, cite your sources.

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2021. I didn't do debate or speech in high school but my son does Policy and that's why I'm here.

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality arguments and if you bring something up, you better be ready to defend it. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits.

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates. Remember to have fun and never stop being an inspiration!

Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. A speaking pace a bit faster than normal conversation is fine. However, spreading has been used to manipulate the rules and turn policy debate into something it was never meant to be. That has taken over policy, so I accept it, but don't try to do the same in other forms of debate.

Except for in Public Forum, I am a “flow” judge. Be sure to roadmap and signpost. Don't drop points unless you have decided they don't matter to the issue. I will weigh who won each point and then determine which points are most critical to the issue in determining who won the debate.

Since Public Forum is intended to be judged by lay people and end with a summary and focus that are about the most important issues from the debate, public forum is not intended to require that students continue debating every point until the end of the debate. Thus, claims that someone dropped your point during one of the last 3 speeches don't matter unless that point seems more important than whatever the other side did say. I will still flow because that's how I'm used to taking notes, but the vote will be based on who made the most convincing arguments overall rather than on a careful consideration of who won each point.

Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments and be backed up by solid reasoning.

You should have evidence beyond what is in your cases. Please use it.

When refuting, please be specific about how your arguments apply to each contention and subpoint.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I am Ridgevue's speech and debate coach.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

I look for clear and concise communication of ideas, concepts and arguments presented, as well as the logic and completeness of the arguments.

Email: ahinecker1@gmail.com

There is no magic way to win a debate, nor a "correct," way of debating. Be persuasive and make arguments that you see as strategic and communicate them effectively. Debate in the end is a communication and research activity - show those elements in the debate and use them to frame and forecast how I will make my decision. Defend what you will defend, just make sure that it is articulated in a manner that can justify a ballot. I enjoy debates that show a lot of ingenuity and predictions in your arguments relative to your opponents. That being said, I love impact turn throw-downs and risky strategies. In the end, you should default to a strategy that you are comfortable with. The only specific I care about is counterplans - I have become increasing persuaded by theory arguments because I think counterplans are getting absolutely out of hand with what they can do. That's all, just remember, this activity is only what you make of it, and it is about more than just winning. 

I am a lay judge who will not appreciate technical debate jargon but rather straightforward arguments (backed by evidence) and intelligent rebuttals. Let's all show a respectful attitude towards one another.

I'm a flow judge. You should signpost well, but speed is fine. Tell me beyond just evidence why you've won the debate. Give clear voters.

And don't be rude(:

I prefer straight communication. I don't want speed or to hear students talking so fast that I can't track what their arguments are. I also want competitors to sign post.

Thank you, and good luck.

Hello! I'm Kazden Kohtz, a freshman in college and a former varsity debate student. I've always been a fan of LD as a style, and love hearing not only the evidence behind a case, but the philosophical ethical theories that fall behind them. I'm a huge fan of speech as well, and love hearing eloquence and well-written tie-ins to any justification.
I'm now practicing IPDA debate and later plan on joining my college's debate team.

As for what I look for in a round is good signposting. Make sure your contentions and subpoints, as well as their tag lines are clear and easy to follow. Along with making sure your claims and evidence are clear, I want to hear why your claims and evidence tie in to each other, and tie back into your framework. The same goes for rebuttals. Be sure to reference where in your own case you got a piece of information when you make a rebuttal.
Make sure, if you have time, to clarify all your voters in your closing speech. They help me know exactly where you're finishing off with each point and often can be the difference in how I make my decision on the ballot.

Do not spread. It makes it very difficult to follow your case. You should be able to win round with qualitative evidence over Quantitative.

I like people to debate in whatever way they feel they can do best. I am okay with anything so long as you are fair. I can understand if you spread, but if you spread you should do it well.

If you make a big claim i.e. nuclear warfare you should really be able to back it up.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

Who am I:

This is my 9th year as the head speech and debate coach.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok. Just make sure to communicate to me on why that is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate. Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large voting issue for me, so make sure I know why you've won on these issues.

K's/Theory

I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

Calling for evidence will use prep time. Ensure you need it and that you are willing to use prep time before you ask to see evidence. I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions, ask me in round!

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

Remember Debate is a game you play with your friends, Have Fun!

I competed in speech in debate in high school, I've done every debate format, (PF, and LD are my "specialties"), as well as a variety of speech events. I am now a recent college graduate

I am mainly a flow judge. I will be flowing the entire round except during cross-examination. I don't care how fast you go as long as you clearly state the taglines, subpoints, and emphasize the main arguments. If you aren't signposting and telling me exactly where you're at on the flow, it may not end up on my flow, and my flow is what I'm judging the round on. Voters are a good way to tell me why you've won the round, so it may behoove you to give clear voters during your last speech. Ultimately, be clear in your arguments. Tell me exactly why your argument is better, has more impacts, is more feasible, or any sort of reasoning, tell me explicitly.

LD- I do consider values and criterions but they aren't the entire focus of the debate. If the v&vc are close or aren't relevant to the debate, you don't have to mention it in every speech. I'm not too familiar with theory or critiques but if they're explained clearly, you're fine.

PF- This was my main debate event, so I know how a good PF rounds should look. That being said, make sure to cover both flows in the second speech if you're the second speaker. Summary speeches can either be summarizing or line by line, I don't care, just tell me before the speech.

Ultimately, this is your round. Debate how you want and how you feel most comfortable. My last-minute tips for success when having me as a judge is:

-Signpost

-Be clear

-Voters in the final speech

-Make solid arguments (I can usually tell when something isn't sounding right.)

-Have fun and don't be rude.

I prefer a good communication style but I do flow well and follow the issues so that there can be a good debate and analysis between the teams.

Hi! I'm Andrew Severance (he/him). Here's a quick overview of my paradigm and judging criteria.

ABOUT ME: I'm a student at Boston University pursuing a BS in journalism and a BS in data science (Go Terriers!). I competed for two years on the Idaho S+D circuit, specializing in LD, Congress, OO, and Radio Broadcast Journalism. I also served as a S+D Team Captain and competed at Nationals. Currently, I compete on the Model UN Circuit for BU at conferences across the US and Canada (ask me any question about that!).

THE SHORT & SWEET: I want a nice, clean, fun round for everyone. Clash - on every argument, in every speech, including the V/C in LD - is critical to win. Stay on topic. Incorporation of credible evidence is super important, including in LD. Be courteous to your opponent(s); discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated.

EVIDENCE TRANSFERS & VIOLATIONS: IF YOU SHARE YOUR CASE AND/OR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH ME AS WELL (email me severance.andrewj@gmail.com). If you firmly believe your opponent has made an evidence violation, it must be formally grieved during the round. NSDA/Tournament rules apply.

*

LD/PF/CX JUDGING below...

JUDGING STYLE: I'm a flow judge, and I will flow on paper throughout the round. Attack your opponents arguments one by one, preferably in order. EVIDENCE IS KEY. In LD, attack your opponent's V/C and link it to your case. Signpost well and be specific. Leaving blank spots on my flow (leaving contentions unaddressed) will hurt your score. Use the full duration of your speaking time.

CLASH: I LOVE CLASH. Make sure that you not only address each of your opponent's arguments, but refute them. Why are they wrong? Why should I care? What negative impacts will result if I vote for your opponent? Be specific with your answers and prove to me why your evidence trumps theirs. Summarize these in your voters.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, as long as you don't sound like you're speaking gibberish. If you're going to spread, ANNOUNCE YOUR CITATIONS AND MAIN POINTS CLEARLY. I will not stop you if you are going too fast; I'll simply stop flowing you, hurting your chances of winning the round.

VALUE/CRITERION (LD): THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. Please make sure your arguments link to your value and criterion. If possible, explain how your contentions also support your opponent's V/C. Know your V/C and defend it throughout the round.

THEORY SHELLS, ETC...: Fiat is okay; avoid all else. If you absolutely have to use other shells or terms, at least tell me what they mean. Please no Kritiks or other policy-style arguments in LD or PF.

PLANS: No plans in PF. Plans in LD are okay, provided they are clearly stated and upheld. CX plans must be presented in 1AC/1NC. For more information, refer to the NSDA and ISATA Debate Handbooks.

TAG-TEAMING (PF/CX): Totally cool with it, just make sure it's not distracting.

TIMING: Brief off-time roadmaps are okay. I'm fine with self-timing, but I will keep official time. If you go more than 10 seconds over your time, I will verbally cut you off.

*

CONGRESS JUDGING below...

PO-SHIPS: Keep time and REMIND ME of the speaker's time. Be efficient and make the round fun for everyone. Know the ins and outs of your parliamentary procedure, including precedence and recency (of course, if you need some help, I'm there for that purpose).

SIGNPOSTING AND WARRANTING: Don't reintroduce points that have already been mentioned; if you have to, at least expand upon those arguments and introduce a new perspective. Explain why your point matters more than those of your opponents. Evidence is necessary, but the occasional short anecdote can go a long way. Directly address and rebut your fellow representative's claims.

QUESTIONING: Keep your questions and answers short, direct, and to the point.

MOTIONS: Though motions and questions are not graded alone, your participation is considered in your ranking. Don't be "out of it" during the round. Remember, placard always up!

MOVEMENT AND SCREEN-GLUING: I encourage you to not simply read off of your computer or a script. Make the speech fun! Improvise! A mediocre off-the-cuff speech sticks more than an angelic pre-written speech. Also, use humor to your advantage!

*

In short, make this round fun. I will do my best to give constructive feedback and a heavily detailed ballot. I don't disclose results, but I can promise you that the RFD on the ballot will explain my decision well.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

I consider myself a tabs judge and I weigh evidence and impact calc heavily. I prefer road maps, clear voters, and that you time yourselves. If that is not possible, I may miss your time signals so bear that in mind. I like clash, but please be respectful to your opponents. I prefer wit over blatant insults. If you have a case in your files that your coaches or varsity have told you is too progressive to run for a general judging audience, now would be the time to run that. I love the current topics and I want to see you all present radical solutions. K debate isn't off limits. If you run topicality, it's going to be difficult to win my ballot and, I say this because I judge based on whether you can prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that your definition of the resolution was the framer's intent.

I was a head coach for 12 years with 13 years of experience in judging debate.

I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.

Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.

In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.

Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.

Good luck!