Speed

I'm completely okay with speed. Be sure to articulate and be persuasive regardless of the speed of your speech. I understand the need to read quickly, but in the end, debate is about interaction and clashing with your opponent. If your speed affects this, the debate and your speaker points will suffer.

Style

As far as case writing, I've always loved interesting, philosophical approaches to debate topics. I firmly believe that philosophy and debate go hand in hand.

More technical approaches to debate are also appreciated and interesting to see.

You will not be disregarded for running stock cases.

I’ll vote on what becomes a voting issue in the round or major arguments. I don’t want to intervene and guess what was important. Show me through clear argumentation what points were key and why you win them.

Rebuttals and Crystallization should be given as the debater moves down the flow. Be an organized debater and it will be much easier to judge you.

The use of jargon and technical language is completely fine.

Evidence is necessary to back up case and arguments.

Final rebuttals should at the least include voters, analysing and crystallizing the round in the rebuttals is fine too.

Kritiks

Run whatever you want, running a K isn’t going to make me vote you down. As mentioned above, I love abstract and technical approaches. Be sure you can provide everything you need and that you aren’t just running a K to throw your opponent off.

How I Decide

I’ll vote off a number of things (in this order):

1. Importance of Arguments Won as laid out in debate. This may include voting issues, abuse issues, topicality issues, impacts, K issues, etc.

2. Relevance of case in regards to the round/topic. (Is your case topical? Does it hold up throughout the round?)

3. Ability to argue key points (Did the debater adequately defend and attack where needed?)

4. Number of Arguments Won (This isn’t always as important. Quality always over quantity)

I do my best to flow as detailed as possible and I’ll write as much on the ballot as I can.

I don't judge CX very frequently but I have coached the event for a few years now. I consider myself to be a policymaker judge - I will try to vote for the team that creates the best world based on the impacts they are able to solve or prevent. I am not a fan of spreading, but I understand a faster pace is required in some of the rebuttals so please make sure you look at me to know if I am able to write down what you say while I'm listening or you shouldn't expect me to vote on that argument. I am a big fan of judge instruction throughout the debate, especially in the rebuttals so tell me what arguments are important, why you are winning them, and what that means for my decision. The 2NR/2AR should begin with why I am voting for your team, and the rest of the speech should be what I am going to be writing in my RFD. For the neg, I would prefer if you focused in on one or two positions to weigh against the aff instead of going for everything said in the round.

Policy arguments are what I am familiar with, so I prefer not to hear kritikal debates if possible, and if you choose to run them in front of me, you should not expect me to be familiar with the technical aspects of that debate. Disads and case debate are more persuasive to me than a counterplan with solvency that isn't ever explained, and I do not often vote on theory, so go for that at your own risk.

Lastly, have fun and be nice! No one wants to judge a round where teams act like they don't want to be there or when debaters are being abrasive, especially in CX.

Physics and Astronomy teacher.

POLICY: I care about the stock issues. If done well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans (CPs are expected in most arguments). If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Also, answering, "my partner will answer that" is not an acceptable response--know your case. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important than quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points. No new in the 2!

LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. No new in the 2.

EVERYONE: Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.