I graduated last year, but before then I had competed in debate for 7 years. I'm not going to be the person to list all my awards and accomplishments, but I am well-experienced across a variety of events. My primary events were Policy, Informative Speaking, and Congress

Policy: Despite my experience in policy, I try to remain unbiased. I would say I tend to prefer a more traditional debate argument, that being said I will vote for a K-argument if it is done properly and backed by logic.

• speed: I am fine with spreading, but I will be listening, and if I can't understand what your saying I will not consider it, even if it's on the provided document, it must be spoken and understood, overall quality over quantity when it comes to speaking
• stock issues are very important to me in my consideration

The number one thing I look for is that both teams are respectful, policy debate can get heated, but directly attacking your opponent is never appropriate. (this goes for passive-aggressive remarks too)

Hello,

I look for clear concise communication. I don’t mind spreading but if you are so fast that I can’t keep up or understand you I will be unable to correctly score you. Please keep it civil, to me and your opponent. If you have a question please feel free to ask me but do not interrupt your opponent.

Good Luck!

I’m a very willing lay judge. I want to give the most impartial verdict possible. Please help me out by doing the following:

Please, no observers. Having them around distracts me from the work needed to give you an impartial verdict.

Please don’t be frustrated if I don’t give you comments. Keeping up with your intellect in order to declare a fair verdict quickly enough to keep the tournament running on time is challenging. I will *work very hard* to give helpful comments, but make no promises.

Please be aware that your speed may be detrimental to your desired outcome. You may present a brilliant contention, but if I can’t understand it, it won’t help you win. Remember, NSDA says, “The objective is to convince the judge that [your] side of the resolution is preferable.” If I can’t understand you, I’ll not likely find your side to be preferable. Please slow down when identifying tags. Like another judge said, “Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.”

Please give me off time road maps. Other judges may not like them, but I find them very helpful. Also, punctuating your speeches with hand gestures indicating numbers is welcome and helpful.

Please keep emotion in check. This is a contest of rationality, not of passion, speed or volume.

Please be respectful. Be kind and civil. If you are condescending or disrespectful in any way, expect penalization.

Please know that I am rooting for you. I love that you are debating! Deep respect for your work and risk taking!

General intro:

I’m an engineer and former debater/extemper who has judged off and on in the many years since including at nationals. Always feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. For all events respect is important, personal attacks or disrespect towards others in the round can affect ranking.

LD:

Lincoln-Douglas was my passion in my debating years. Here are a few of my views:

• LD is first a foremost a value centered debate not a battle of evidence, you need a framework and to tie each argument to it

• I’m not formalistic in judging LD there are no set rules on how to set up a framework or make arguments

• While I did debate in LD it was a long time ago during an era I've heard referred to as "traditional", as opposed to the more modern progressive era. Traditional LD was more truly value based with less spreading and focus on amount of evidence. But an increased focus on definitions and articulate arguments. I recognize that this can be difficult with many of the modern (non-value based) topics being generated by the NSDA currently.

• I understand that some new era LD coaches push adding "plans" to LD cases I'm not a fan of this in my opinion there is no place for a plan in value debate, I will not expect the other side to provide a counterplan or convert to a more policy/plan based debate if that is the route you choose in your case. That being said I have given the win to debaters who presented plans

Policy:

I was never a policy debater so I'm certainly less skilled than many but I have judged policy a bit so I'm not new to the field. Here are some points I focus on:

• I can handle moderate spreading but certainly not full nationals level speed

• Please speak to the quality of the evidence provided not all cards are equal and I will weigh the strength of the cards against each other.

• Do more than dump evidence, spend time on connecting it clearly to the plans and arguments

PF:

Public Forum is the debate I've judged the least, but given that it is designed to be judged by a non-expert that is the approach I take. Your delivery should be such that an common citizen could understand. Be respectful and share time during cross-fire. I want to see evidence but don't let it become a policy style battle to see who can read the most card with no clear connection between them.

BQ:

I love BQ it reminds me a lot of how LD was in the "good old days" before NSDA forgot how to create LD topics. Keep the arguments directly related to the topic. You get the same topic the entire year so I expect to see very refined cases the later we are in the season.

BQ should be very philosophical, given that while you should have supporting evidence you should also clearly connect it together with your own reasoning in a way that clearly clashes with your opponent.

Remember all your arguments need to connect directly to the resolution.

Extemp:

• Please cite your sources I prefer the source name and a date but at least a name

• Give a definitive answer to the question

• You are welcome to time yourself. I will also be timing and have a timer large enough you will likely be able to see it, I usually use it in count up mode so no beeping disturbs your speech.

Obviously I can't list every event here but if you have questions just ask.

I am a lay judge.

Speak persuasively and clearly. I am unfamiliar with most jargon. Please use roadmaps and signposting.

Be respectful and kind to your opponents. Bigotry will not be tolerated.

Debate is supposed to be fun - prove it!

I look for professionalism/poise, conscious involvement, and organization. Knowledge of the topic is a perk.

I dock for eye rolls and drama.