I'm a former policy debater from Yankton, SD. I've judged a lot of policy in South Dakota along with some PF and LD. I'm open to just about anything and will judge it based on the context of that round. I try my best to keep my personal beliefs outside of the round, but I'm only human! (On that note, I studied chemistry in college and then did a masters in environmental policy.) I appreciate a good line by line and a nice, clear narrative at the end of the round, which explicitly tells me how you want me to vote and why. In the past, I've voted on stock issues, critiques, politics, etc. and can imagine voting on any sort of well-reasoned argument.

Regarding speed, I'm okay with speed in the constructive speeches, especially if I have a document to refer to. It'd be nice if you could slow it down for the last two rebuttals (1nr and 2ar). As for theory, please clarify jargon/terminology. Assume I'm not familiar with any terms, acronyms, abbreviations, etc. Even arguments discussing the unfairness of the format aren't familiar to me (I never debated LD). This is my first time judging circuit LD. This means you'll have to do a bit more work than you would with a more experienced judge (or I might miss something/not follow).

Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our What'sTheirName Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

In debate, I look for critically thought out arguments that make sense resolutionally. Answer the question-provide the plan. In old school talk-I am a stock issues/communicator judge for policy debate. Much of that would pose true for Public Forum.

I do not like evidence spew for the sake of spreading opponents out of the round. I can track with moderate speed, but I want to hear some analysis of the argument and subsequent rebuttal. If I have stopped typing on the flow-or writing on my flow pad, I can't judge it. Speed does not win the day for me-signposting is appreciated.

LD-I want to see clear value/criterion debate-when rounds tend toward the policy, I tend to tune out. I was a die-hard LDer who was trained to answer the resolution, provide clear value clash, and wrestle with the pragmatic solutions...if there are any. I like to see how the students can creatively tackle the same resolution-so a less common tactic is cool with me- Again, speed is not my game-if I can't understand you-it doesn't make it one the flow and is not judged.

I love to hear the conversations that come out of really good rounds where there is a clear exchange of ideas and a definite clash-that, to me, is where the most authentic learning takes place! Talk pretty and have fun!!!!

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

Hello. I have been involved as a judge for speech and debate for the past 10 years. I debated in LD and Policy in high school and briefly participated in Parliamentary Procedure in college.

The debate round is your time to demonstrate argumentive and speech skills to convince me of your case. I will evaluate the round as I am told to, but I need the debaters to close for a specific way for me to evaluate the round. If I am not told how to judge the round, I will default as a policymaker judge and evaluate that way.

A few things to consider for arguments:

I am cool with procedural debate to an extent, but I need clear evidence that there was a violation and that there is a specific rule in the handbook that was violated for me to vote on it.

I will vote on T if Neg can prove case is not topical. On the flip side, Aff can totally run a non-topical case if they are really good at arguing through T. If Neg closes for T with an a priori voter and doesn't address the T first, I assume they don't believe in the argument and I'll throw it out of the round.

Aff should have a prima facia case (debate 101 with Paul Harens here). It drives me crazy when the 1AC completes the case without ever reading Inherency and everyone in the room ignores it like it didn't happen. I've voted on Gap Inherency so many times when it is proven in round to be the case.

Disads and CPs are the bread and butter of policy debate in my mind. Not every scenario should lead to extinction, but some do. Nuke war is just another hyperbole, but it lets us discuss the best way to address the harms presented by the case and weigh the solvency of case. If we go for a policymaker decision, please use impact calc to give me a clear reason to vote the round.

I don't live in the debate world. I am just a person that enjoys participating in the activity and watching students grow into great communicators. That said, I am probably out of the loop on the hottest lit for the K right now. I'll listen to it, but the theory and the narrative need to be consistent and clear for me to evaluate. If I get confused on how to interpret it, communication broke down and I am not wholly responsible.

I will vote presumption if Neg calls for it; however, I will need to be convinced that there is no net-solvency to pass plan to do so.

Couple other notes:

I still contribute to killing trees at tournaments, so don't assume that I'll have a laptop to take a copy of case and not flow the round.

Speed is cool with me to an extent. I probably have a tolerance of 6.5 on a scale 1-10. Look, I like some of that Sound Cloud mumble rap out there, but I don't really like mumble speed reading. Be fast, but be clear. I also like to stay organized, so please slow down on signposting and tagging so that I can keep with the debate on my flow.

It is okay to ask for post-round comments, but I will tell you if I feel like disclosing or not. If I tell you I am not going to, don't try to push for it. It won't work.