Policy Paradigm:

I am a policy maker/stock issues judge. If I am going to vote affirmative, it is going to be because the affirmative team presents a clear case that maintains all of the stock issues throughout the debate round. If I am going to vote negative, it is going to be because the negative team has taken out one or more of the stock issues or has presented a counter plan with a clear net benefit. I believe that all three elements of rhetoric – ethos, pathos, and logos – should be evaluated equally, and as a result, I will weigh your speaking ability equally against logic and evidence. I value strong analytical argumentation, clear links in your logic and clash in debate. While I will listen to K, I expect links to the stock issues at hand. The current trend of not valuing flow because you've flashed evidence is extremely problematic for me. If you drop arguments because of your unwillingness to actually listen to your opponent, that will count you against in my evaluation of the round.

LD Paradigm:
I am a traditional LD judge. Even though I understand K's, counterplans, etc., I am not a fan of them in LD. Plan on referencing the philosophers and why your case offers the values and criterion needed to win the round. Clear speaking, not speed counts.
I am not a fan of speed but I can deal with it to a certain extent. Your analyticals and your tags must be clear or your speaker points will suffer accordingly. I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. In my other life, I am a teacher of English and rhetoric.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

Biography

I competed on the circuit for three years in policy, PFD, impromptu, oratory, and congress. I placed in local and national tournaments, and eventually competed at the Tournament of Champions in PFD my senior year.

PFD Paradigms

I am a strict flow judge. I will not make connections for you. If your opponents are being abusive or are wrong, call them out on it (politely) otherwise I will flow their argument. Extend your arguments through out your speeches, and clearly link into your impacts.

If an argument is not mentioned in your summary speech, I should not hear it in your final focus. It’s not fair for the first speaker to win on an argument the second speaker does not have time to respond to.

I do not usually call for evidence since I believe all evidence analysis should be handled in round. However if your opponent heavily contests your evidence or if it sounds too good to be true, I may ask to see it. 

Road maps are appreciated but not required.

I do not flow CX, but I do listen. If you want me to weigh an argument in the round, mention it in a speech. CX is your opportunity to get the information you need from your opponent. Also, don't be a jerk. If you don't let your opponent speak, I will assume you are afraid of what they have to say.

I heavily value impact calc. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

Tell me how to vote. I love voters and frameworks.

Policy Paradigms

I am a blank-slate judge. Tell me how to vote.

I like K debating. That being said, I only like Ks if they are done well. Do not a debate a K if you do not know what you are doing.

I do not flow CX.

I do not usually call for cards since I believe all evidence analysis should be handled in round. However if your opponent heavily contests your cards or if it sounds too good to be true, I may ask to see it. 

You can spread, but slow down for your tag lines or important analysis.

Other than that, have fun, and I will vote on anything.

Experience

I have been a policy debater for 3 years at Arizona State University. I am currently the head debate coach at BASIS Chandler. In college I have generally ran more non-traditional affs such as Lovecraft.

Overview

I am a very flow oriented judge. I give equal preference to policy style debate as well as Kritical debate. As long as there is plenty of clash and no signs of legitimate abuse I am fine with a Kritical aff. I won't vote for you just because you have large quantity arguments, however well developed and well analyzed arguments generally hold more weight with me. I am comfortable with high speed debate, but please be clear.

FW/T

I have a high threshold level to win a Framework debate. Be sure not to just be repetitive but also expand and further analyze FW arguments in rebuttal. As long as you can show clear abuse, which I usually am very critical of, then I will be sympathetic in a FW debate. However, as a K debater I generally believe the more breadth of information the better in debate, so I am sympathetic to K affs that increase in-round education.

I have a high standard for winning a T debate, not only must you not be topical but must win args for why non-T args are abusive, which is difficult. I will weigh args for why topic education is good for debate.

CASE

Pretty straight forward, make sure there is plenty of case offense for the Neg and sufficient Aff responses. Aff needs to spend sufficient amount of time on case args in every speech as well as short overviews on case, don't just extend args but expand.

CP/DAs

Ensure there are relevant and specific links to the aff as I hold link args to high standards. Ensure plenty of impact comparison. Net benefits to CP must be substantially better then aff. I am ok with all types of CPs, just make sure you defend the style of CP you want to run. Perm debate is very important, but there must be adequate explanation of the function of the perm in order to win the perm debate, simply saying perm is not sufficient.

K

I am comfortable with a wide range of kritical debate. Again, specific links are necessary, weak links or links of omission aren't very compelling args. Again, explain the function of the perm and why/how the aff is allowed to perm the K. Explain the alt world and the methodology you use to get there. I am comfortable with ontological debate, but args must be well developed and explained for me to understand. I am comfortable with weighing all Kritical impacts, so good impact comparison is a must.

Clipping

I don't usually ask for cards so I need you to let me know if clipping occurs in round. Debate will stop immediately to assess clipping, and if there is substantial evidence, those caught clipping will automatically loose the debate and you will be reported to tournament staff.

Former BP debater. Adopts a Public Policy maker perspective. Will accept some theory. Speed is fine if clear. 

I have four years of experience in LD debate on the New Mexico circuit and am currently a policy debater for ASU.

I am open to all types of arguments, but if you're going for T be sure to be very convincing because sometimes it does not seem like it's a legitimate argument. 

I can can handle speed, but be very clear in your speaking and argumentation.

Experience: 3 years HS debate (CX, LD, and PF)
Speed max. 20% above normal conversational speed in CX, no speed in LD.
Will not vote on a K unless it is unique and run very well. The probability that I will vote for a cap-k or other non-unique kritiks is very low. A good kritik presents a valid policy option NAD an in-round educational benefit. 
I will vote on T if there is obvious abuse. I prefer logical policy options above all else.
Impact stories must be unique and current. BIG IMPACTS like nuclear war, extinction must have specific evidance as to their developement. I find impact stories revolving around pariah states and PRC-ROC relations to be tough to believe. Reading cards that are not up-to-date with international relations will make me believe you less. Mentioning current negotiations and analysing your plan with respect to them allows me to view the round more realistically.