I say my paradigm before round its pretty basic. I'll accept most arguments if they're presented well and link. The only exclusion is that I will NEVER vote on non disclosure, its not a real argument and is counter to debate and seeks to prep out cases and place the burden of pre round prep on your opponent

I am an impact heavy judge. I want to see impacts, framework, and values to be upheld and used in the round. Only rule don't spread

I lean toward traditional/classical, but I can be open. Definitely not fond of spreading; if you do speak quickly, be sure you can be easily understood.

I judge based on the ability to make a policy (Policymaker) that is going to resolve the resolution. I am ok with Spreading. If I am not able to understand what you are saying I will say "Clear" meaning clean up your speed, or slow down. I am familiar with K's, DA's, CP's, and virtually any kind of debate strategy that could be used. I would rather hear 1 or 2 good points than 15 that suck up time and reduce the value of the debate. I do enjoy hearing topicalities, and stock issues. In high school I competed in CX, and LD. In College I was the captain of the USW, and ENMU speech and debate teams. I competed in CEDA, and Parliamentary Debate. I am open to just about anything. I will say that being disrespectful to another team, is not valued and will be judged. Debate is about learning, growing, and having fun. Do not use it as a platform to reduce another persons confidence for your own self gain. 

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, Theories, Piks, other random things.

I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).

CX: Most important part of CX for me: Would I rather live in Neg world or Aff world. But I will evaluate K's Kritiques, Theory. However, a large percentage of the round will come down to that. If you want to go off-case then do so. There will be no on-case ROB. You will need to thoroughly explain your off-case arguments. Don't assume I'm familiar with the literature. I would like to hear an overview attached to it. Doesn't need to be written but certainly needs to be explained. You will need to pass all mechanisms needed to earn my ballot.

PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.

Congress: Presentation is big for me. Think Extemp but with actual arguments and clash

Another thing; Let's say your opponent failed to attack your case in any of those speaking blocks where they must do so. In your next speech just go ahead and say that and save us all all this time so we can move on with our lives. No need to continue droning onward if your opponent just literally dropped the entire round unbeknownst to themselves. I wouldn't put this here if it didn't happen before.

Outside of the above you should be using all your time. I'm sure there's something either A.) You missed or B.) You can add some analytical analysis of something throughout the round.

Use speechdrop.net (Make everyone's lives easier)

At the end of every debate round there should be voters and weighing. Do that.

Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask.

One more thing. Do Not say "Latinx." En lieu use the gender neutral term "Latino." ¿Entiendes?

Traditional LD judge. Rate and tone are important. No drops. It is value debate so debate the value. Use of philosophy is a must.

My paradigm stands somewhere between tabula rasa and games player depending on the format. I've been judging on the circuit for 10 years, now. And have judged every event at least once, but judge LD / CX most often - usually 3-6 rounds / month of each, depending on the tournament schedules.

What that means: You know best how you debate, and while you should try to cater to your audience, as long as you stay in the format of the round you're in, I will judge based on individual merit, level of mastery of the topic at hand, and how well formulated / defended your arguments are in the round itself. I'm not going to be surprised by just about any argument, and would like to see a new debate played out instead of hearing the same camp files with the same rebuttals, every round. But, I also understand: New isn't always better, stick to your strategy you walked in with and give me your best round of the day.

For both CX & LD I am comfortable with spreading, as long as you slow down for the source / warrant / tagline - just signpost efficiently and clearly, as well as telling me where you want your arguments / rebuttals cross applied.

In LD, I expect analytical arguments, and want to see a philosophical debate, not a CX round with a Value / Criterion framework. This, in my opinion, isn't the place for DAs and counter-plans, generally speaking, sometimes the topic caters to this strategy, and if it's a strong strategy, I'm not going to fault you for it. In that same vein, your arguments do not necessarily need to be evidence based, as long as you can convince me that what you are saying is morally superior, as that is the spirit of this debate format. That said, I'm not going to count out evidence-based arguments, as your strategy might depend on it.

In CX, give me any argument you think is best, I'll flow it, as long as you signpost where you're going & where you want arguments cross-applied. Don't expect me to do your work for you. DAs, Ks, Counter Plans, analytical, empirical evidence, they all have their place in this format, run it well and I will be receptive; run it poorly, you'll lose speaker points, but the round will ultimately go to the best team, not individual arguments.

Traditional. I am looking for a good argument supported by facts and I dislike spreading. 

I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.