I am a parent judge who has judged a couple of rounds in debate before. I have never debated in high school or college but have really gotten to enjoy watching students debate. I really enjoy and appreciate when student utilize evidence well in their constructive speeches. I like when team when teams actually argue about important aspects with logic and facts.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance. When judging debate I look for skill and stock issue emphasis. I have no preference in speed, but if I can not understand what you are saying I can not listen. Not a fan of counterplan. Topicality is rarely effective unless the Aff drops it. Generic disadvantages do not normally go far in my judging. I generally do not like Kritiks in Policy debate.

he/him

Speechdrop or email chain are both fine, whatever you are most comfortable with!

I am the parent of a debater and have a few years of judging experience. I don't have any personal debate experience, but it is a fun activity, so above all, I hope you have fun during the round. 

Please make sure that you slow down and enunciate so that I can hear and comprehend your arguments. I don't have any preference towards arguments on either side, but please make sure that you explain them clearly so that I can understand them. 

Be respectful to your opponents and to your partner!

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

In terms of how I judge rounds- communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance. I need to see the aff case proven or the neg disprove the aff's case using evidence/stock issues.

I'm generally looking for who proves their side the best using traditional stock issues, evidence and arguments, but also logical ties.

I like a deliberate, conversational pace- I need to be able to understand you. If I can't understand what you're saying/reading, I stop listening. Be clear, concise, and don't speed read. Explain your cards.

I'm generally not big on counterplans. Prove to me as the neg why the aff's case won't work, don't just change it to a different agency, etc. Argue against their plan.

Topicality is important, but it must be a fairly blatant violation to win my ballot.

Please don't argue over definitions or abuse the whole round. Argue the case.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed and do not argue extinction/nuclear war. That's probably not going to go well.

Kritiks are acceptable if specific links are analyzed although I prefer real world arguments.

Be respectful to everyone in the room, otherwise I have no problem voting against you

Adaption - Teams------------------x--Judge

I'm not too techy, so cross-x is very important for me

On the DA, explain the link clearly and walk me through the chain that leads to the existential (or non-existential) impact. A short o/v on the DA helps out.

CP needs to have a clear benefit that the aff is not able to access through their plan.

Not too familiar with Ks, but am willing to vote on them. I am not the best judge for you if you like running abstract kritikal arguments, but if you explain it clearly, anything's fair game.

I find it better to have a link unique to the case, but general links work.

Clash is very important, this has vanished to a great degree in my time judging