UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

In my role as an LD judge, I prioritize the value clash in determining the winner of the round. I expect debaters to clearly define their values and value criteria, and to consistently explain how their arguments uphold or fulfill the respective values.

• I view the value clash as central: the debaters should not only argue about the facts but also demonstrate how their positions fulfill a higher moral or philosophical principle.

• To win the round, debaters must explain not only the relevance of their value but also why their value is superior in the context of the resolution.

• I expect both sides to engage directly with the opponent's value. Simply asserting that your value is better or more important is insufficient without reasoning and analysis that compares both sides’ values.

• Comparative analysis between the values should be the cornerstone of your speeches. It's essential to prove that your value system better addresses the resolution than your opponent’s.

• Evidence plays a role, but it’s secondary to the overall value clash.

• A strong impact analysis is necessary. Why does your value matter in the context of the resolution? Why does it make the world a better place or offer a superior moral framework? Strong impacts are those that resonate with fundamental human experiences and ethical principles.

• If a debater is clear and persuasive but slower, I will still prioritize them in the round.

• Your delivery is secondary to the argumentation. I care more about your ability to explain and argue the central moral principles than your presentation style, as long as it's intelligible.

• I appreciate when debaters make clear ethical connections between their framework and real-world consequences.

• Don’t just explain your framework; apply it to your position's resolution and real-world impact.

• Feel free to challenge the opponent’s value by showing its limitations, contradictions, or its inability to address the issue at hand properly.

I am a former LD debater. I am open to hearing any arguments that debaters wish to bring up as long as they are respectful of others. I am not personally a big fan of excessive speed (I am fine with speaking quickly, but not to the extreme), so I would prefer if you would avoid this.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

My approach to Speech & Debate is a learning experience, with feedback and growth being more important than winning tournaments. As such, my notes and critiques are meant to improve, not to discourage. I prefer competitors who seek to connect with the judge and the audience rather than simply win points or bash an opponent. Speaking slowly, clearly, and with purpose are the best ways to win my vote.

I am a traditional debate judge. I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments. I do not believe that Kritiks and theory have any place in PF debate. Speed should be reasonable. I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.

I focus the most on the summary and final focus speeches where the debaters should be funneling the round down to the key issues and comparing and weighing them.

I appreciate the delivery of the spoken word at a moderate speed. I request that you utilize consideration when engaging with teammates, opponents and judges. Please present your argument in a clear, concise and organized manner. I need you to connect your details to your argument.

I am unble to judge speed reading adequately, therefore more often than not you will lose my vote. Please utilize language to clarify your points and enable your speech to be easily followed.

It is helpful to utilize tag lines, signposts. Roadmaps off - time help to clarify the organization of your presentation for me.

Debates and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I will not be able to cast my vote for it. Debaters must tell me what is importand and why I should cast my vote for their position. Please be clear and concise about what I am considering and emphasize your key points. The impacts of your contentions must be realistic. Your arguments must be clear and plausible. Please present a clear anaylsis of why you should win in the final rebuttal round.

I evaluate your fluency of speech, rate, tone, use of transitions, as well as organization of details. Please view each session as an opportunity to learn and grow. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from you!!!

Me: I was a policy debater in high school.

How I decide who wins the debate:

I look at the important decisions in the round and decide based on who convinces me the best. I do everything I can to leave my bias outside of the round and to pretend I have zero knowledge on the topic/resolution.

I am looking for arguments/evidence to be warranted, and expect rebutted arguments/defenses to move the argument forward, and to not to defend with a repeat of what you said before(it’s been attacked, tell me why the attack is deficient). Use your logic skills here to do this. I love a great argument (especially negating your opponent’s argument/evidence) that is a result of your critical analysis and not just a card you found in your research. If everyone drops an argument, so do i. If you pick up that an argument has been dropped, especially an important one, please let me know that you are on top of that.

Evidence should be empirical.

I think the beauty of debate is the research & the critical thinking. I want to see that reflected in your debate and not arguments based off internet searches of someone else's critical thinking (it shows).

Big Claims: if you attempt to argue a really big claim/contention (the resolution will result in anarchy, totalitarianism, imminent nuclear war), back it up well with a great piece(s) of evidence and convince me. Opponent: don’t fall for “hyperbole is business as usual”. Use this to your advantage and bring the argument back into reality.

Utilization of alternative methods (e.g. redefining the universal definition of words listed in the resolution, theory, k, etc, etc.): I believe that everyone involved in the round has made an unwritten contract with one another that we are all here for the spirit of the activity and resolution/topic as designed. However, I acknowledge that sometimes, especially in the resolution/topic, "as designed" may be unintentionally deficient and an alternative method is a reasonable strategy.

Speed. I flow the round and as long as I am able to understand the argument that is made, both in coherency, and annunciation, I am fine with spreading. But unless you are good at it, I suggest you slow down and focus on communicating your message. Spreading quickly becomes a distraction if you are terrible at it. Don’t undermine yourself. Remember: you have studied the topic at length. you are more familiar with the topic than I am. Your job is to communicate to me, the person (you should assume) who is unfamiliar with the topic. Refrain from casual acronyms, etc., that you use with your teammates. I haven't been part of those conversations.

CrossX. i am not judging you on anything that happens in the CrossX. If you make an argument here, it counts as nothing to me unless you bring it up in your neg construction or rebuttal. I prefer crossXs that set you up for your next turn rather than the theatrics that can happen in CrossX. Please do not berate your opponent into submission of the desired response. I understand the need to interrupt so that your opponent does not eat up your crossX time, but I ask you to do this effectively to advance your case, not as an intimidation strategy.

GOOD LUCK and HAVE FUN!