I'm a typical "some random guy's parent", that already tells a lot. So please address your argument clearly and speak slowly, please DO NOT spread. I will weigh style and arguments equally, and weigh analytics over evidence. Good luck guys!

For email chains, please use: Judgebechler@gmail.com

A little about me. I have done 3 years of CX, a year of LD, 4 years of Extemp, 3 years of Impromptu, and 1 year of HI. I have made it to UIL State in CX, UIL regionals in LD and Extemp where I have held my own against nationally ranked debaters, and TFA State in Congress. I have judged now for 5 years in a variety of settings and events, from Novice only tournaments to UIL Regions.

Now onto paradigms:

ALL LD/PF: IF YOU TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE AFF MUST DEFEND A PLAN TEXT, I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN!!!

Overall: For Novice events, keep speed to a minimum. I do not tolerate sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. (I really shouldn't have to say that) and those will cause me to vote you down.

I will NOT even consider disclosure theory in any event under any circumstance as an argument you can use to win.

For PF: Generally prefer clash and clear and present voters, speed is fine but keep in mind that I may lose arguments if you go too fast or don't effectively read tag-lines. Go heavy on the Framework, net benefit, and impact calculus debate, keep note I'm primarily a CX/LD judge.

Novice CX: At the beginning of the year I am more lenient on mistakes. That being said, don't be afraid to try arguments out in round, if you make mistakes, I will make sure to put the fixes in your comments. I also will not punish speaker points as hard in the beginning of the year unless you are clearly trying to go above what you can do. Spreading is discouraged for me right now as it is so early, but if you can clearly spread, that's ok. I am mostly a stock issues judge, but give me the cleanest, clearest, and easiest way to vote for you (usually with a good impact calculus), and I will vote off that. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Varsity CX: Speed is fine, just make sure to slow down on tag lines and authors so that I can guarantee that I catch them. I am tab in varsity, and love impact calculus and other voters. I defer to reasonability as my standard for T. In addition, if you do decide to run T, make sure that I understand why T is a necessity in this specific round! Make my job easier and I will be more in your favor. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Novice LD: I am a traditional judge, and I value FW debate highly, but if you make the case for impact calculus debate, I will vote on that. Again, make my job the easiest. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Varsity LD: I prefer traditional, but am okay with progressive if done properly. I prefer you not to spread as to increase the level and depth of debate, and not the breadth. I do defer to reasonability in regards to T violations, so if you run one, keep that in mind. I really need voters or else everyone is subject to judge interpretation of the round, and I don't think anyone wants that. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Always feel free to ask clarifying questions about my paradigms or for more explanation!

Southlake Carroll '23

UT ‘27

Hi I’m Samhith. I did LD and PF in highschool. I don't have any strong preferences on what you can and can't read in a round. For context though, I read mostly policy and kritikal arguments in LD and theory arguments in PF. The most important things to me are judge instruction and being clear. I’m not the greatest flower ever so make sure you slow down on important parts of the round but otherwise speed is ok. I prefer arguments that are well thought out and warranted as opposed to blippy. Please weigh, the earlier the better. Disclosure is good.

Speaker points are based off of how knowledgeable I feel you are about the topic and how good your strategy is. I will also give higher speaks if you send cut cards and analytics during rebuttals.

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions before the round!

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

I am a consultant, former school principal and long-time teacher. I competed in VLD debate all four years of high school (Law Magnet HS in DFW/North Texas, 2004-2008). I saw LD make the change from three to four minutes of prep. We used an actual timer back then. Kept my batteries in place with tape. We primarily read off cardstock paper and rushed to print before heading out to compete. Laptops started to be used but were a novelty if you read from them. Different, huh? I do not presently affiliate myself with any school, district, or coach that currently competes on the circuit.

I will occasionally come back to the sport as a hired judge. I found it important back then to have judges who understood the sport. Although now I feel as lay as ever. The sport has made a shift towards mirroring policy more which is fine with me. But I won't pretend to know or understand more than I do. I listen to the news every morning so love the shift in topics. Likewise, I will praise my peer judges on a panel when their analysis is enlightening and challenges me, even if it differs from mine. Being in this space gives me so much hope for our future. And you, debater reading this, bring me joy.

As I have seeped myself back in the world of judging, I have found the following to be important to me:

• Clear storytelling. A debater presents and extends evidence with a few technical terms thrown here and there for dramatic effect. A strong compelling debater prioritizes the content in the round, articulates how I should frame the round, and makes logical analysis that provides deep insight into the implications of an aff/neg ballot for the round.
• I leverage your own words as much as possible in my RFD. Do the work for me. If I am having to do a lot of connections, comparisons, and weighing -- then the round didn't have much of a clear winner. As much as possible, direct me how to vote in your closing argument so I know what to weigh based on what's important in the round.
• Weight the arguments. I will often give a 28 if your speech is clear, speed or not, but a lot of your airtime outside of card and tagline reading is a repetition of this same language and full of technical terms. It's just not new. But if you are actually illustrating the clash, impacts, scenarios, and decision calculus for me -- easy 29. Non-negotiable 30, winner or not, when the big picture is insightful for implications past the round at hand by making my way to vote crystal clear.

Too, unless I am in an elimination round, I prefer to not disclose. For whatever reason, my outcome for decision gets challenged when I share in preliminary rounds. I prefer we keep the tournament on time and humility at the forefront. If needed, I will share any pertinent feedback to the debaters in-round. If I need to address anything potentially harmful to the sport, I will ask you (or your opponent) to stay behind so I can do so privately and in a safe space. I have only had to do this once to share with a novice debater re: how their presentation of self could be deemed as rude, disrespectful, and personal instead of constructive and about the content. But this all comes from a kind place. This sport should help transform you to be better, not worse. I, in turn, also welcome your own feedback and thoughts. Let's transform our lives with this sport to make the world a better place.

Technical Preferences
- https://speechdrop.net/ over e-mail
- Speed is fine, unclear speech is not. I will tell you to clear but hate that it breaks your focus
- I prefer for CX to be closed and that competitors are not speaking or interrupting one another in prep
- I would prefer that you time yourselves and when over time, to finish the immediate thought -- not the next paragraph. Cue awkward intervention by me when this happens

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

My judging philosophy is to get out of the way in the round as much as possible to let the competitors argue what I should be voting for.

If you say it, and prove it, and apply it, I'll buy it.

Pronouns: they/them

I also alternate between she/her and he/him, but if you don't know me well enough to know how to use them I would recommend you stick to they/them.

Contact: micahsturgeon@icloud.com

LD -

Yes I wanna be on the email chain :) alyssavanzandt16@gmail.com

———————————————————-———————————————————-

I’m open to every argument, but here’s what I typically lean towards…

Traditional paradigms:

In trad debate I’m truth > tech 100%. I find the criterion debate more essential than the value debate and framework overall a huge voter in the round. That being said, if your contention level arguments suck, I will not vote on framework alone. You need both. Do the weighing for me in your voters. I am familiar with the most common philosophers debated, and am very encouraging of people using new philosophers.

———————————————————-———————————————————-

Progressive paradigms:

K:

love K debate. I am not familiar with all of the literature though. K Affs are fun.

CP/Plans:

I don’t have any problem with these being ran. Always justify why a perm doesn’t work and give clear solvency to the harms in your case and I’ll weigh it. If your plan text has the word "ought" in it, I'll cringe.

PICs:

I like these when they’re done well. If the PIC is just meant to bait theory or be goofy, I will be less open to the argument.

Theory:

Not a big fan, but I will evaluate it. If you're using theory to genuinely call out abuse don't let this deter you.

Disads/ads:

I like Disads and ads when there’s more to the impact calc than magnitude. I typically don’t buy extinction/ low probability high magnitude arguments over helping people and saving lives now. so minimizing SV>util usually for my ballot. If you clearly outline in your framing why low probability matters, I’ll weigh it :)

———————————————————-———————————————————-

Speaks:

I like to give high speaks unless you’re being rude, aggressive, or generally making the debate space feel unsafe.

I don’t mind speed, but send me your case (alyssavanzandt16@gmail.com). I will dock speaker points if you’re simply incoherent or failed to share your case with your opponent.

• I am a new parent judge.
• This is the first time that I've judged this event.
• No spreading.
• Don't be rude.
• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

I'm Jaden. I'm a student @ UT - I have been debating since 6th grade in both LD and policy. Went to TFA and bid tournaments. If you'd like to use an email chain / share speech docs, please use jadenb0622@gmail.com

In an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why the affirmative is a bad idea.

I have debated and judged most args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.

UT UPDATE: It's my finals szn so if I seem frazzled, cut me some slack.

As a debater, I often went for anything standard for a Varsity LD debater; I have debated args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.

I think the word "unsafe" means something, and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly -it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. This applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. Suppose you believe that the debate has become unsafe. In that case, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism to resolve safety issues. Similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. That said, the standard is high for what would make a genuinely unsafe/abusive debate round.

I WILLevaluate Disclosure Theory if the violation is apparent. However, that comes with the burden of proof.

IMPORTANT STUFF

• Speed: Slow down on tags, interps, and analytics. I flow on paper. If you’re a numbers person, I would say I’m good at flowing about a speed of 6* on a scale of 1-10 (6 for finals weekend), maybe a 7, but try what you would like; I'll say slow if you need to slow down. This is particularly true for K/T debates
• Timing: I will begin your time on your first word. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. You will keep track of your own prep time.You should also keep track of your time.
• Signposting/Roadmaps: I will be much happier and more able to fully understand and follow your arguments if you signpost and number them!!
• No, I don’t believe you can re-insert verbal highlights you did not read.
• Disclosure is good. Reading disclosure against a small school with no Wiki page might make me smile because I'll hope you're joking.
• I love evaluating a good 2NR/2AR, give judge instructions, and make my job easy — I will be happy, and so will you be with your speaks. :-)
• On tricks/skep: I'll play a trick on you.

I would love to see a good topical, impact debate this weekend, but everyone's got a dream

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Bad theory arguments/theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely I will vote for theory debates where I can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is complicated for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• Affs/NCs that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - I think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain cannot process/flow it at high speeds.

Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter. Racism = bad

Have fun fr! I will try to adapt to the debate you want to have.

Thanks,

Jaden

I am primarily an LD, Congressional, and Individual Events judge (though I do have some experience in CX and PF, as well).

As a former competitor, I am pretty traditional in my approach to all forms of debate.

I view LD Debate as value/philosophy debate. Make sure that you address the value and criterion debate, as I will consider those central to the round and voting issues. If an opponent drops arguments, I will expect that you mention the drop and explain the relevance of the dropped argument to the round. It is necessary that you stay centered on the resolution and don't spend time getting bogged down in argument tangents (and, frankly, lengthy definition & author credibility debates).

I am more focused on the quality of argumentation and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you spread in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. If you insist on spreading, you must make sure that you are very clear. I will also expect you to slow down on the taglines when spreading. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me on a document).

Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lack professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points. I also am not a fan of open CX and do not believe that opponents should be speaking to each other during prep time in an LD round. Also, even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). It should go without saying, but please make sure that you are clearly signposting as you go down the flow.