Philosophy:

As a parent judge, I am committed to providing a fair and unbiased evaluation of the arguments presented by both teams. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and the effective use of evidence in debates. My role is to assess the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Experience:

I have experience judging debates for 1+ years. I have observed various debate formats and am familiar with the general rules and practices of competitive debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to objectively evaluate the arguments and evidence presented during the round. I do not have preconceived opinions about the topic and will base my decision solely on the merits of the arguments made during the debate.

Argumentation:

I appreciate well-structured arguments that are supported by evidence. Debaters should focus on providing clear contentions and solid reasoning.

Rebuttals:

Effective refutation is crucial. Debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments, identify points of clash, and provide a clear summary of their case in the final rebuttals.

Cross-Examination:

I expect cross-examination to be conducted respectfully and to serve as a tool for clarifying positions and uncovering weaknesses in arguments.

Time Management:

Debaters should adhere to time limits. I will keep track of time, but I expect participants to be responsible for managing their own time effectively.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, strategy, and overall performance. High speaker points will be awarded to debaters who demonstrate strong argumentation skills and effective communication.

Respect:

Respect for opponents, partners, and the judge is essential. Any form of disrespectful behavior will be penalized in my assessment.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the quality of the arguments presented in the round. I will carefully evaluate each team's contentions, evidence, and refutation before reaching a decision.

Preferences:

I do not have strong preferences regarding specific debate styles or content areas. My primary concern is the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an excellent opportunity for personal growth and intellectual development. I encourage all debaters to approach the round with enthusiasm, integrity, and a commitment to constructive discourse.

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."