As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

LD: I'm a pretty traditional judge. I like philosophy and will vote on clash first (both framework and the flow), then I'll look to see that arguments were responded to, but I care a lot more about winning the most important arguments than the most arguments. I do not want to hear theory or spreading. I'm a history teacher and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about.

Policy: I come from the LD/PF/Parli/Speech world, so I would say I’m going to be as Trad as possible. Because of that, I’m probably going to be a little biased against K AFFs, big reaches on topicality, and extinction impacts, but I’ll listen to anything with an open mind and I’ll pick whose policies are still standing at the end of the round. I care a lot about accurate historical context and valid economic theory, as I mention in my other paradigms. I will flow and I will listen.

PFD: Don't do policy. I don't really like statistical debates and I'll generally ignore any argument that you say will lead to the end of the human race, kill millions of people, or cost/create trillions of dollars. Just win the round by arguing the resolution and accept that there are two valid sides. I'm a history teacher, and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about. I'm also an economics teacher, so if you're going to run any kind of economic argument, make sure you know what you're talking about.

PA Parli: I have personally authored most of the rules as well as the guide for this event and fully understand their intent. Make sure you follow them. Remember that logical arguments and cards bear equal weight and I won't listen to outlandish cards and impacts against solid logical argumentation. Please do not run a topicality or call a point of order unless you really know what you're doing.

I am a parent judge, but I do flow and track arguments. I prefer a medium speech pace, please.

Hello, My name is Raj and I am a parent judge (consider me as a lay judge) who has judged LD and PF in the past. I do take notes but please do not speak too fast and also outline which part of your case you are on (ex. contention 1 of your case or a rebuttal to your opponent). Please do both of these so that I can have clarity on what you are saying. Be respectful to your opponents and most importantly, have fun. Don't worry too much about speaks and do your best. Good luck!

General

I am a traditional judge. I will flow. I still value good speaking skills.

Speed should not be that heavy, I think slower and nicely articulated arguments are much better.

Rebuttals should have good analysis and not just evidence that says the opposite.

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

I am a traditional judge. I do not prefer Spreading.