LD:

I have some experience judging LD, but I was never a debater myself. I understand the arguments that you're making but am not entirely familiar with certain debate terms so be aware of that.

I want to see clear link chains, arguments should be logical and warranted out, with a clear voter. It's unimportant how well you speak if the claims you are making are poorly warranted. Your arguments need a clear rationale to back them up. Judge instruction, particularly in the rebuttals is key, tell me explicitly why I should be voting for you. Its not enough to tell me what your argument is, if you want my ballot you have to explain to me WHY it matters. I judge tabula rasa, and am genuinely willing to vote for anything as long as you tell me why I ought to.

Speaker points are often inflated by lay judges, so I will adjust for that. The majority of you won't receive less than a 27-28. The exception is debaters who purposely demean their opponents. If you are more experienced than your opponent show me that through your ability to debate, not ad hominem attacks or belittling cross examinations.

I listen to cross examination but don't flow. If you want it on the flow put it in your speech. Cross will be reflected in your speaker points but not in my ballot.

I’m a dad judge and have been judging for 3 years. I have judged a lot of Policy, LD and a little bit of PF.

I look for good clash, warrants and extensions. If you are going to spread please do it at 75% speed and make sure to slow down at cards or points you think are important. Even better if you can stop and explain those to me in your own words. Please sign post and provide off time road maps.

I tend to lean on the side of truth over tech. For policy judge instructions in the 2NR/2AR is very helpful.