I am a parent Judge. So I will need you to speak slowly to follow you well.

Background.

I have performed Public Speaking as 'Motivational Speaker' and 'Trainer' for Educational Institutes, Corporate & Business Events. Worked as 'Life Skills & Communication (prof. comm, debate, drama , ps) Coach' for self-owned academy.

Judgement Criteria

1) Content (is relevant and clear, provides insightful analysis about the topic, use of effective evidence to support your claims.)

2) Delivery (engaging, confident and well articulated)

3) Non-Verbal Communication (gestures, eye contact and body language)

4) Questioning and Responsiveness (clear & concise, smart & challenging)

5) Overall Impact and Effectiveness (how strong an impact you make about your claim through your content, delivery and execution.)

6) Adherence to the Debate Rules and Guidelines.

All the best!!

Please add me to the email chain: baxteremily22@gmail.com

I'm familiar with policy and critical arguments, so run whatever you're comfortable with. I will vote on anything, so I'd be best considered a tab judge if you're doing the work and telling me why they matter.

Tech>Truth. I'll only vote on the dropped argument if you explain to me why the drop is significant.

Depth>Breadth. Self-explanatory - if you are running more than 6 off, there probably isn't much warranting going on. Evidence quality is also important, and comparing evidence is super useful in making decisions, but I won't do the work for you.

Affirmatives.I'll listen to anything, just be able to explain later on in T and FW debates why your method of education is best for debate. I'll listen to performance affs, too.

Counterplans/Disads. I'll easily vote on them. If AFF has impact framing and you don't, I will likely vote aff. I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the cases.

Kritiks. Just reading all of the blocks you've written for your K won't help you win the round. Do engage with the other team's arguments and actually contextualize your link to whatever they've read. Generic links can make it really easy for me to vote aff. I love specific links to the aff, and will heavily vote on them. I know some lit but don't assume I know what your kritik is about. Please explain and paint a story for me. That said, I expect there to be framework, a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making.

Theory/Topicality.I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I will listen to Topicality arguments, and think when theyre are done right, I will vote on them. Please impact out your standards and voters! I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory/topicality, that tells me that it's a time suck, and I will not vote on it. That said, I will NOT vote on certain theory args, like disclosure, spreading, etc. I don't believe there is substantial debate here.

Speaks. Just don't be rude. If you say something offensive/homophobic/racist/etc, that will not be tolerated, and that will be reflected in your speaker points and your ballot. I'm completely fine with speed just put me on the email chain and signpost.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Kris Compton

Background & Coaching Information:

*4 Diamond Coach with over 27 years of experience coaching both public and private programs in Florida, Alabama and Texas.

*Experience coaching and judging all events

*Have had TFA finalists in multiple events, NSDA Nationals Semi and Finalists, and have coached numerous Alabama State Champions in multiple events

• 2023 NSDA Duo Interp Finals Judge
• *I have a true passion for the overall educational and life changing skills of speech and debate. I expect competitors to be respectful of all events and each other.

INFORMATIVE & ORATORY

Content & Visual aids

*A NEW perspective on a NEW topic or a refreshing and inspiring topic that is not overdone.

*Informative should not be persuasive in nature; your job is to inform not persuade

*The best oratories provide stories and a genuine moments within the speech. I should feel and see your heart in your speech.

*Research should enhance and advance information presented. Research should be relevant, current, and reliable

* For informative, Visual aids should not be a distraction but add to the quality of what is being said. The focus should be on the words spoken and not the visual aids. Just because you have strong visual aids is not the winning point for me; a well written memorable speech and performance weighs more heavily.

*Speech should be well organized, easy to follow, and engage the audience

Performance

*Professional and engaging. Performance should enhance natural strengths. Don't force cheesy humor.

*Natural movement and gestures; blocked and robotic movements sometimes can distract from the overall presentation

*Apply all the needed vocal variation that makes speeches engaging

*I want you to be genuine and real. I am not interested in fake and robotic performances. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care how polished you are if you are not real.

*I should be able to tell why this topic is important; passion is imperative. This should be obvious in every aspect of your performance.

IE ( HI, DI, PROSE, POETRY, POI, DUO)

*Creative, engaging, relevant, entertaining.

*Maturity and age appropriate.

*Follow the event rules

*Easy to follow; don't make me work to understand what is happening.

*Take me on a journey of emotions

*Characterization should be genuine and real.

*Blocking should enhance and add to the performance; not be used in place of good performance.

*When working with a partner, strengths should complement one another

*Sometimes simple moments in a performance are the most memorable. A certain look or gesture can be gut wrenching and draw an audience in. Those moments are more impressive than overblocked and overacting attempts of winning my vote.

*Same as speaking events, I value genuine and real performances. I'm not interested in polished robotic performances that have not heart.

PF

*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal. If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments.

*Respect in the round is essential. I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.

*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate.

*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.

*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.

*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)

*Impacts are essential. I don't care if you don't tell me why I should

* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.

* The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.

*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.

*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.

*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.

*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, butI will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.

*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow

*Words matter; word economy is essential. Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points

Extemporaneous Speaking

-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis

-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely

-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact

-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.

-The more current the information, the better.

-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.

-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything

-Professional presentation is incredibly important.

-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.

-Tone should fit the topic.

-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.

Congressional Debate

• I NEED CLASH.This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech. Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives.
• When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments.
• Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated.
• When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better.
• DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
• I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
• You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.

Background: I was a high school debater, extemper, and orator back in the 1990s. I became a debate coach in 2003; I coach all the events.

Everyone: Be as polite and professional as possible.

For debate events: No spreading; speak at a normal, conversational speed. I will deduct speaker points and you will likely lose the round because you've made it too difficult for me to understand what you're saying. I shouldn't have to read a copy of your case to figure out your arguments; I should be able to flow it based on what I hear in your performance. In rebuttals, I need you to signpost the part of the case before making your argument so I know where it goes on my flow; otherwise, your arguments don't count because I don't know what you're attacking or defending. Give me voters in your last speech. Do not waste time running disclosure theory; I will not vote based on it.

For congress: Be prepared before the tournament; I have no sympathy for students not having their speeches ready before the round begins. Don't take excessive breaks. We must meet the minimum time for the round while also keeping the tournament on schedule. If you think the Presiding Officer makes a mistake, deal with it immediately; otherwise, it's too late and we have to move on.

For IEs: ranking can come down to small details; bring your best! I like clever introductions that get my attention with personal stories, jokes, etc. In poetry, the cadence of the verse matters to me; if your poetry performance sounds like a prose performance, you may rank lower compared to others who perform poetry as spoken word. For extemp, the depth of your analysis will impact your ranking.

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. AND BE MINDFUL THAT I AM 60!! Apart from understanding your words, which I probably can in most cases, age slows down the speed of cognition. I just can’t think as fast as a young person can anymore.

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 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..." The whole point of sources is to demonstrate you have done some reading and thinking on the topic.

Eric Mueller Judging Philosophy

I debated in college and was a collegiate debate coach for 15 years. I was research assistant at Guyer High School for five years.

Generally I like you to tell me how I vote. I have no natural hatreds for any argument although I am not high on tricky theory or standards debates. Otherwise I see myself as about as tabula rasa as you can get. I mean that. Tell me how to vote and on what argument and I will genuinely evaluate it. And I am willing to vote on almost anything.

I like evidence debates where people pull out warrants from cards and I like the last speaker to explain why the other side loses and they win. Think offense. I like debaters who demonstrate their intelligence by understanding their arguments. I like to have fun too. So enjoy yourself.

I give pretty good speaks I think. 29s and above in solid debates. I always disclose.

That's the short form.

More....

I can be convinced to be a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode of policy making is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Multiple CPs can be irritating but also at times strategic. Obviously advantage CPs can be an exception.

I read evidence. I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. It will go a long way here. Explain why your evidence should be preferred.

I also like you to take the time to explain specifically how you think you win. Put the whole round together in a quick "story." How do you want me to view it? Compare it the other team's "story." Tell me how this is taken out and that outweighs this. It makes it easier for me to frame your approach as I decide. Give me some "big picture analysis." Don't just get mired down in line by line. I don't need 4 minutes of overview or "canned" overviews. Make specific to what is occurring in this debate round. Otherwise, it's boring.

Put me on your email chain. My email address is eric.mueller@rcisd.org

I also often break with the conventional format. I am willing to vote for kritikal negative and affirmative arguments. So, yes. I will vote for your kritikal affirmative. In fact, I would prefer the negative debate about the offense the affirmative advocates rather than a constant resort to framework debate. That said, I will also vote negative on framework against kritikal cases. However it often comes down to an impact debate that many negatives are not very prepared for and the affirmative is usually very prepared to debate. I am always looking for something new.

It is the job of the negative to explain how K functions with respect to affirmative solvency. I think that needs to be hashed out in more specific ways than I often see occur. How do advantages with short time-frames factor into the question of whether to vote on K first? It is more clear for me with things like settler colonialism than it is with Marxism, for example. But don't assume. Take the time to explain. Make the reason it comes first very clear. How does the K undercut their turns? Be specific. Use examples. Don't make it just a non-unique disadvantage with a floating pic alternative. Sell it.

I also think there are reasons why there might be advantages left for the affirmative even given the criticism provided by the K. I think sometimes more specific affirmative evidence proves the plan can still have advantages to weigh vs. K impacts (as in Marxism) especially when the time frames are quick. Why does K come first? Has that been explored?

Framework against critical cases:

I also believe that it is necessary to answer clearly case claims by critical affirmatives that answer the voting criteria on framework. Think of framework as the disad, and case arguments as solvency that allows the framework disad to outweigh the case. Framing matters. I think "competitive equity" as a standard against critical affirmatives is often untenable for the negative. Focus more on the nature of voices and representational aspects of the need for grammar. Think semiotics. That makes voting negative on T easier in these cases. You need offense, not just terminal defense. T must be framed as offense against the case.

Quickly worded "Do both" or "Do plan and K" sometimes leave me confused as to what the world of the perm really looks like. Take the time to frame your perm for me clearly. How does it take out CP/K? How does it interact with the link to any net benefit? On the negative, hold the affirmative to clearer explanations of how the perm functions. Confusion for me usually breaks negative in the presence of a net benefit.

I’m not a big theory guy. I understand theory but I don’t like voting on it. I will if necessary.

All in all, I’m a quality of argument person. Focus more on making quality arguments rather than quantity. Kick out of stupid things early and focus on what you want to win in the block. I have a tendency to allow new explanations of old arguments in the rebuttals and love a crafty 2AR.

I am currently a lay parent judge.

Therefore, please have concise, logical, understandable, & organized points. Also, please don't speak too fast.

I will judge based on both delivery & arguments equally.

Have a great time competing!

The first that I am concern with in all of the speech and debate events is this continued reference to the existence of an off time road map. The time requires are specific to each event and speakers should stop using that because I do not recognize or grace then an exception they are appropriating. I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When I judge PFD, this event is not a mini-policy round and I have a hard time understanding why it is trending towards that. the design of this event was never about spreading it is about persuading a judge to listen to a political discussion and value the organization, substance and then evidence support the pro or con position. Jargon specific to Policy is not a value to me in this event. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality, however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counter-plan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to responds to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation. Finally, Congress speakers should observe the procedures associated with UIL and NSDA, the pro and con are equally worthy of my time and attention and I the pro/con presentations delivered with passion and conviction, a spirited question and answer period and smooth flow of the chamber.

Howdy y'all!

My name is Matthew and I'm a current sophomore at UT Austin (Hook 'em!). I primarily did Info and OO but I also have experience in Impromptu, Extemp, Congress, and Prose (don't ask...). Feel free to call me Matthew, Matt, judge, etc.

*Note for IEs in general: Don't feel the need to adapt your performance to me, I wrote out the below to more so help explain the reasoning behind some of my decisions/feedback

Public Address Events:

Extemp:

• The most important thing for me is to see you answer the question. You have a lot of liberty in how you do so, just make sure to stick to the original intent of what you were asked.
• Every part of your speech is important. In your intro, include some kind of hook that grabs/keeps my attention, have some context that lays the foundation for why the question is being asked, explain why it's important to ask the question, and outline your main points. Make sure each main point is distinct and contains roughly the same amount of evidence/analysis. In your conclusion, restate the question / your answer and wrap your speech up nicely, preferably with a tieback to your intro.
• You should have a good quantity and variety of credible sources. I also like when speakers qualify their sources; i.e. [person], a [occupation] at [organization], stated on [date] that...
• Assume I know nothing about your topic (because more often that not I don't). I really appreciate speakers who include specific examples and explain everything simply but thoroughly.
• Relax and have fun! Humor is a great way to maintain engagement and break up the seriousness of your speech!

OO:

• I really hope to see you have fun and be creative (in your approach to your topic, how your structure your speech, etc.)!
• Your problem should be universal (totally cool to use specific personal experiences or the exclusive experiences of a particular group of people, just make sure to address the generalizable, underlying roots of the issue).
• I really, really, really, really want to see a personal connection. By the end of your performance I should have a good idea of why you chose this topic to deliver a 10-minute speech on.
• I have no preference for how you structure your speech as long as you explain what the problem is and it's causes/effects/solutions
• The best solutions are those that are specific (break it down into steps), realistic (something I could actually implement into my day-to-day life), and direct (i.e. not write to your local gov rep about implementing X change or "education")

Info:

• I really hope to see you have fun and be creative (in your approach to your topic, how your structure your speech, etc.)!
• Truly structure your speech however you want, just make sure each main point is unique.
• This is not as significant as in OO but I'd still like to see why your topic interests / is important to you
• The first time I see your speech I would really like to learn something that I did not already now
• Visuals are absolutely not required but if you have them: quality/simplicity > quantity/complexity. I am more impressed by those that actually add value to your speech (i.e. help you explain/demonstrate a certain context, data visualization, etc.) than super techy/aesthetic ones that more often than that just serve as distractions.

Interp

• Be authentic; remember that these are real people's stories you are telling
• If you have multiple characters, each should have their own distinct personality, voice, facial expressions, gestures, etc.
• I really like to see you tell a full story (think Freytag's pyramid)
• In your intro I think it's generally good to have some kind of thesis regarding application or call to action

PF/LD

• All of my competitive experience comes from the Speech side of things but I have judged an increasing amount of PF/LD/WSD rounds recently
• I do my best to flow and make my decision solely based on arguments brought up in the round
• Feel free to go as fast as your opponent is ok with as long as you send a doc (preferably speech drop). Keep in mind I probably won't be able to parse any specific debate abbreviations or terminology
• I'm probably best able to evaluate rounds where you debate the topic but if you go for something else make sure to really explain it well and why it's a reason I should vote for you
• I won't look at arguments brought up too late into the debate
• Impact, warrant, weigh, and tell me why to vote for you!

CX

• I have never judged nor participated in nor seen a CX round

Congress

• Speaking = 70% | Content = 30%
• I think it's better to not give a speech than rehash a previous representative's speech
• I'd like to see every speech after the first cycle have clash
• Make sure to tie back to specific parts of the legislation
• Negation speakers should be proving net harms, not just saying passing won't do anything
• I look pretty favorably on POs as long as you keep the chamber running and make sure everyone has a fair/equal opportunity to speak. With that said once you start making a few mistakes, your rank may drop quickly

World Schools

• Style: Audience engagement, confidence, body language, personality, humor (when appropriate), conversational delivery speed
• Content: Logically sound arguments, examples if appropriate, using all the time allotted, outlining what you’re going to be doing at the start
• Strategy: Moving the round forward, engaging with your opponents arguments/responses, rebuilding your own case, telling me where/why you won, asking/answering POIs

First of all, kudos to all the kids competing at these tournaments. I am continually amazed by the incredible talent you all demonstrate in speech and debate events, and I thoroughly enjoy judging them. I have judged different speech and debate events.

I expect all participants to respect their competitors and refrain from any racial comments or other forms of discriminatory language.

Things I will be looking for in speech and debate events:

Speech Events:

I evaluate speeches based on various aspects, including content, structure, memorization, references, and delivery style. Key elements include a strong, engaging introduction, body, and conclusion. The speech should persuade and hold the audience's attention throughout.

Debate:

I look for persuasive speech with strong content and well-researched references to support your arguments. Strong rebuttals, logical arguments, and clash are key to a good debate.

Good Luck!!

I've done competitive debate for 7 years and currently do NPDA style of debate with UTTyler. I did 4 years of policy in High School 2018-2022. I will say my view of debate has changed a lot since debating policy in high school, so if you have any specific questions revolving my paradigm feel free to ask questions before the round. Other than that I'm pretty tab, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or just outright derogatory to your opponents.

Policy - General Notes, please tell me how I'm voting in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me why I'm voting that way. I like to see ya'll pull your best piece of offense and collapse to that in these speeches, I think we've become to comfortable going for multiple positions, but if you think a simple Advantage outweighs the DA/CP then go for it, or if you're the neg and think Theory is the best out then I want to see you go for it for 5 mins. I think you should always being pulling your best peice of offense and telling me why it comes first, why it outweighs, and why the other potential win conditions by your opponents fall short. Also, I'm fine with speed, I just think that you should be willing to sign post- and I don't think you should be spreading all the time, I think it's beneficial when getting the initial arguments down, but If you're going to spread through cards and not even engage in the clash of the warrants I don't think spreading is doing you any favors. It's ok to slow down and make common sense arguments, and I don't see enough of them in policy so please just make them.

1. Topicality/Theory - Idefault to topicality/theory being apriori even if not articulated, I think this comes from the view that topicality is a procedural. However, if you can articulate to me why topicality/theory are not a voting issue then I can buy that too. I will vote on a risk of abuse if it's articulated well by the negative, however, the aff can also win that potential abuse is not a voter in the round. I think a lot of times, especially in high-school policy, we aren't terminalizing impacts on topicality. (What I mean by this, high-schoolers often group fairness/education as a standard when I think they are more of the impact of topicality - i.e., if we can't test the aff then we don't know why the aff is true, or If we can't engage in clash that means we don't get the educational benefits of weighing and portable skills because we can't access the aff solvency method). Theory is a friend, if you think the other team is being abusive I don't mind hearing your articulation, but my threshold for voting on 2NC/1NR theory is higher then 2AC theory if there is no direct proven abuse.
2. Framework - Often times I don't see framework debates in high-school policy, so I feel like I should clarify how I will evaluate the round if there is no articulation of my duty as a judge. I feel as though debate is a game and I default tech>truth (i.e., I will vote for an impact that is terminalized with a clear articulation of either magnitude/timeframe/probability over the risk of an impact that is not sufficiently weighed, however true it may be). But just because this is how I default doesn't mean I don't want to hear your framing shells, If I'm told to evaluate utilitarian impacts over structural impacts or vice versa, I will evaluate that level of the debate before I go through the rest of the sheets.
3. K's - Ok so I only every ran Cap and Set Col in high school, however, being in college my partner (Leilani Hurtado) and I have read a wide variety of K's. So I will say I'm pretty comfortable with them, however, that doesn't mean I will know the literature you're pulling from, so explanations are always good. I also think that alternatives should be labeled clearly when running k's, I think the framework of the K should make implications about either how I evaluate debate or how I evaluate the topic and the alternative should be the best way to resolve your mpx.
4. Everything Else - I'm cool with anything, if you have any questions about how I evaluate certain arguments, my default answer is I'm going to be cool with anything, just make sure you're collapsing to a piece of offense and not going for pure defense, otherwise I'm mostly to outweigh a risk of an mpx vs. that mpx being improbable.

For IEs

Be original. I don't knit-pick the standardized norms that have become commonplace, and I'd rather have a fresh experience that is true to you as a speaker.

Blocking is effective when done well. Movement should have purpose but feel natural.

Tone - I'm not going to like you more if you use the "news reporter" tone. Understand your audience and speak to us.

Gravity - particularly for DI, but also in Extemp, have some appreciation for the gravity of the subject matter. If you choose to portray a world-shattering tragic event, your world should be shattered. In extemp, if you're going to use a heavy subject for your AGD, be respectful of that.

Character deviation - Maybe a bit more important for me than others...it's hard to buy in to the story if characters don't have extremely clear distinction, so I place extra significance here.

Facts - for Extemp, I keep up with the news and coach debate. Know your stuff. It's not a deal-breaker to be wrong on fundamentals, but it certainly doesn't help. I'm always going to evaluate both performance of speech and quality of information, so make sure you're solid on both fronts. It'll definitely hurt you to try and sell me a blatant lie.

Time signaling must be requested. I'm happy to accomodate, but my default setting is to let you do your thing. If you want a verbal stop to make sure you don't go past grace, just ask.

All-in-all, give me an honest performance that lets met escape reality for 7-10 minutes. I'm not going to look for a million technical elements. I'm going to listen to my gut.

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF, LD, World Schools, and some IE events, as well.

If you speak too fast, and it gets to the point where I cannot understand, I will stop taking notes and anything you say fast will not be on the ballot.

I judge mainly based on the information in your case and the way it's presented. The format/structure of your case is not as important to me as long as it's easy to understand and flows well.