1.       Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

Debated in high school (early 1970s)

Frequent Debate judge

2.       I have judged 23 years of policy debate.

I have judged under 10 CX rounds this season.

3.       List any tournaments you have judged at this season:

Hutchinson

4.       Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Equal weight for stock issues, policy maker and speaking skills. This is a communication activity, after all.

5.  RATE OF DELIVERY 

Slow. Debate is a communication activity.

6.  QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS 

Prefer few but well developed arguments.

7.  COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES 

While it is a communications activity, issue resolution is important.

8.  TOPICALITY

T is relatively important. T args, though, MUST be structured properly.

9.  COUNTERPLANS

Don't like hearing them every round. States counterplan is old, used every year with a domestic topic. Avoid it.

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

I appreciate that you've read a book. I don't like book reports in debate. Avoid them.

13. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

I love DAs. But DAs must have specific links and brinks and clear NON-NUCLEAR impacts. Again, structure is critical. So, no, I'm not a fan of generics.

 14. CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Find arguments and stick with them. Avoid conditionals. 

15. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Yes, sometimes we have to go there. But there is no "book of rules" for debate. Back in the 1970s, you didn't present plan until 2AC. Yes, I'd accept that today, despite "theory" arguments to the contrary.

16.  Optional: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses, add those comments in the space below:

Call mine the "Grumpy Old Man" paradigm. I love structure. Don't make me work. The more you force me to work, the less you'll like the outcome.

I am real world judge who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will NOT weigh nuclear impacts. Debate remains a communication activity. If I can’t flow the argument because of speed, it does not exist. Watch me.

I will enforce KSHSAA Rule 52. Rudeness has no place in debate.

Stock issues/policymaker/communication skills are of equal importance to me. Don’t make me work. Please sign post and properly label arguments. Tell me where to flow arguments. “And” is not structure. “Observation 1 Inherency. A: “ etc. If you don’t tell me where to flow something, you may not like where I flow it.

And, no, I won't weigh "performance debate" rounds. Automatic loss for the team that starts it.