I am currently a coach at Edina High School and work as a JV/Novice coach for the University of Minnesota. My paradigm generally boils down to "debate is a game and I'll vote for whoever wins it". I am good with fairly technical debates, enjoy it when a final rebuttal is succinct and highlights my easy ways out of the round at the top, and value clash and line-by-line debating fairly highly. I have no strong bias against any individual debate position (see part 7 before running positions generally considered strange in front of me) assuming the debaters do a good job of debating said position. I have below listed a more specific set of my beliefs on individual positions that might answer some questions you have, if not you can obviously ask me before the round.

1. Topicality- I do evaluate T on a fairly truth-based paradigm. I am generally aff leaning when the affirmative is reading a blatantly topical aff and the negative goes for something like T-substantial. That said, if the aff is questionably topical or blatantly untopical I might be a good judge for you to go for T in front of because I value the technical side of the debate so highly. Affs that do something that might not be obviously core of the topic, or that are purposely untopical and attempt to out-card the other team on topicality annoy me, and I am more prone to vote neg on T in those instances. That said, I do usually default to an offense-defense paradigm unless convinced otherwise, and believe that the standards debate is where 95% of the T debate should be done, and not arguing about whose interpretation is better. T debates are won on standards, not on whose interpretation card is more qualified.

2. Theory- I am more tech leaning on the theory debate, although that only goes to a certain point. Most judges are not huge fans of voting for theory, and I'm not an exception to the rule. Just because the other team doesn't explicitly answer "Dispo Solves" on the condo debate doesn't mean you are going to get an automatic negative ballot. If you want me to vote on theory, as a general rule, you should probably have a pretty good in-round abuse story, or it should be dropped. Alternately, a very good explanation of why the world of their interpretation is bad may suffice. I don't necessarily need in-round abuse (it does sort of sound stupid to say abuse, but whatever) but it does make it easier for me to vote and I won't need as in-depth discussion of your standards and who accesses things like fairness and education better.

As a very wise judge once said, I am not responsible for flowing your 40 point theory block at your top spreading speed. It is also important to note that I hold extrapolation on theory to a high standard, if you read a tiny condo block in the 2AC, shadow extend it in the 1AR, and then somehow spend 5 minutes on it in the 2AR I am unlikely to allow it, or more likely to allow the 2NR's "new" answers. I don't want this to scare you from going for theory in rounds that involve something that is reasonably theoretically objectionable. The more specific the theory debate, the better. I'm more likely to vote on "no solvency advocate theory" than conditionality. Or on conditionality if they read 4 conditional advocacies instead of 2.

3. Disads- Aff specific is good, but I realize that isn't always possible. I have no proclivities for or against them, they are a part of debate. I do enjoy a well thought out disad + counterplan, or disad + case debate. I appreciate offensive kickouts of disads when possible and generally seem to award speaker points to teams who do so, possibly simply due to the positive perception of the skill of the team that it leaves me with.

4. Counterplans- Kind of covered under theory, I don't start out thinking that any of them are completely cheating (although if you go for the "the" pic I may think slightly less favorably of said position at the end of the round). I think that most CPs, whether they be PICs or process cps are strategic, and the theoretical justifications should be debated along with substantive strategies. That said, I do seem to follow debate community views of which CPs are more unfair/cheating, I just don't think that I think they are as unfair in general as seems to be thought. Sometimes conditions counterplans are strategic, you just need to be better than the aff at justifying why it should be allowed.

5. Kritiks- I like to think that I am fairly comfortable with at least the base level of a lot of kritikal analysis in policy debate. I do find myself voting for kritiks fairly often just because affirmative teams seem to be defaulting to non-specific answers to most kritiks, which I find sad considering that specific answers to a non-aff-specific kritik are fairly devastating. I think that negative teams should try to make their kritik as specific to the affirmative as possible, and definitely read case specific links, and explanation of specific parts of their case that link and in-depth analysis generally lead to higher speaker points. I find that negatives almost always need to spend more time on the alternative debate to convince me that the alternative is able to resolve the harms that they isolate than they usually do, and reward teams that explain their alternatives to a comprehensible degree. I also have noticed a trend of teams reading kritikal arguments, not answering certain aff arguments because they think they don't have to, and losing on them (See Part 6). I expect negatives to either answer all the affirmative arguments, or at the very least explain to my why they don't have to. I evaluate dropped arguments as true, and as I am probably not as deeply versed in the literature of the kritik you are running as you are, you should tell me why I don't have to at the very least if you don't want to receive an RFD you find confusing at the end of the round.

6. Performance/Kritikal Affs- Fairly comfortable/fine with these but I usually default to requiring good line-by-line debate in these rounds too unless I'm given a reason to think otherwise.  This means that you should make sure you answer all of the other team's arguments or at least tell me why you don't have to instead of assuming that I believe that you don't have to just as much as you do. I find it hard to vote for teams based on their personal narratives and whatnot without a good explanation of why they shouldn't have to answer the negative's (or affirmative's) specific arguments and a good reason why voting for their personal narrative is a good thing. If you think that you do those things as a performance team, I might be a good judge for you, as I am usually willing to give out fairly high speaker points to teams who do the above things well.

7. Silly/Wacky Arguments- Basically you just have to win them to win the round, although I do have a proclivity to dislike arguments that you win just because the other team wasn't prepared for or hadn't heard of it. Those kinds of arguments might include: Gregorian Calendar, Nonsensical Kritiks (unless explained in a good way to make them not-nonsensical), Ashtar, ASPEC (any spec really), etc.

8. Speaking- I am good with speed, but value clarity very highly. I will say clear once during your speech, and if you do not improve I will begin docking speaker points. I am also not responsible for flowing your arguments unless I actually hear them, I will not call evidence to find out what the arguments you made were, just to find out how well substantiated they are. Debate is a persuasion activity, if you do not talk clearly I will neither hear nor be persuaded by your argument.

9. Flashing/Emailing- I don't take prep for flashing or emailing as a general rule with 2 caveats: 1. If one of the teams is debating on paper I will take prep for the other team flashing/emailing so as not to disadvantage the paper team, 2. If your flashing takes an excessive amount of time (generally over a minute) I will begin to take it out of your prep time.

One last thing, please do impact comparison and calculus at the end of the round and tell a story about what your world looks like when I vote for you or let me know what I'm voting for. If I end the round with an extinction scenario on each side and no comparison I will be forced to call the evidence and do the analysis for you to pick a winner, and I would much rather not intervene in your round. Debate well and have fun.

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.

I am a fairly classic LD judge. I like to hear a strong value debate and well argued philosophic positions. For me, a criterion is an absolutely necessary component of a case and must provide either a weighing mechanism for the value or measuirng mechanism for acheiving the value. As a general rule I prefer empirical evidence, but will not prefer an argument with empirics over an analytical argument out of hand. 

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.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

DISCLAIMER: EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT - THE ROUND IS YOURS, I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT EXPLAINED WELL ENOUGH!!! I also encourage questions before the rounds if there are any specific questions that need clarification.

tl;dr - know the ins and outs of the arguments you run. Good debate mechanics coupled with execution and decision making will get my ballot constantly.

That being said...here's how to pander to me

Affiliation: Sioux Falls Lincoln
Experience: I debated for 4 years during high school in and out of my home state of South Dakota. My first two years of debate were strictly policy oriented; however, during my junior and senior year I ran a lot of kritiks (some better than others and with varying levels of proficiency) so I'm fine with voting on anything from T to performance affs.

Generic philosophy:
My judging philosophy is that each round is a game. As a game, there are implicit and explicit win conditions that must be met to receive the ballot. That means that arguments must stand up by themselves to a certain threshold if they hope to win. For that reason, framing is what I put the most weight upon.
I love seeing well put together game strategies tailored to pick apart opponents but well researched generics are fine too. For affirmatives, a well thought out advantage with strong internal link scenarios is much better than five one card scenarios. The same applies to the neg, a single great DA > 20 spec arguments. I very much love to see thought put into arguments and strategy and doing so will reward you in front of me.

Win conditions/Burdens: These are the standard(ish) ways that debates are won and I use them as a guideline to determine the round. They are all subject to change should I be told otherwise.

Policy round: Impact calc (Magnitude, timeframe, probability, or who accesses them best)
Policy round w/ ethics impacts: Util > Deontology or vice versa (impact framing)
Policy round w/ counterplan: Neg must prove superior solvency with a net benefit that o/w any potential solvency deficit
Policy round with kritik: Will vary from K to K. Usually will center around a single framing issue in an overview (ontology, epistemology, etc)

performance round: It'll really come down to what is happening in round.

Speaks:
30: Best speaker I've seen all tournament - You are so good that I expect to see you in outrounds and/or winning the tournament.
29: Best speaker in the round - You were clear and provided all the warrants I could ever need.
28: Good speaker - I usually start each debater at around this many points and move up or down accordingly. If you get a 28 at the end of the round, it was because you were a good speaker with a strong grasp on fundamentals.
27: An okay speaker - A couple things may have gone wrong somewhere along the line but you were able to recover. 27's usually mean that you are becoming unclear or at time are very hard to understand.
26 and below: I DO NOT like giving out low speaks and I usually reserve this for speakers that were either offensive or impossible to understand. If you get a 26, something went very wrong.

Specific Issues -

Speed: If you happen to be a debate robot and can put out obscene amounts of evidence in a short span of time remember that some of us are only human. Don't be afraid to slow down, especially on tags, because clarity will get you farther than speed. I never want to have to call a card unless the wording is being highly disputed so If you zoom through all your warrants don't expect me to get them all the first time around. This is still a communicative activity and if you aren't communicating your information to me then don't be upset if you get voted down because I can't understand what is happening.

Theory: I'm fairly open to either side of this debate simply because It was never an issue I felt strong or attached to. Perms might be good, bad, ugly or a consult counterplan might be the devil. I don't know. Those calls are up to the people in the round. I will say that I was irked by multiple conditional counterplans but even then I won't insta-drop you for it. If a theory hail mary is what it takes for you to win the round, feel free.

Topicality: Very much like theory. I don't feel a strong attachment to it but I did close for it much more than I'd care to admit. It's all up to interpretation but terrible topicalities are a real non-starter so please don't make me vote on them.

Disadvantages: There isn't much to say about disads. We have all read them from day one so they are a debaters safest bet. Just have a nice and clean overview that explains the thesis of the disad with some impact calc and you will be golden. If you are feeling fancy, throw in a turn or two to spice things up.

Counterplans: A well researched, specific counterplan is beautiful. I firmly believe that the counterplan is the most under-utilized tool in the neg arsenal and should be used in conjunction with a strong internal net benefit grounded in literature surrounding the aff. Any and all theory arguments need to be well explained.

Kritiks: I spent a good deal of time working with these so I feel right at home in K rounds. I've read almost all major kritiks at one point or another but if you are going off the beaten path and reading something I've not yet seen be sure to explain it in terms we can all understand. I do hold kritiks to a higher level of scrutiny because they are often very fluid in that they have a shifting win condition that varies from K to K. Make sure it is clear why I should evaluate things a certain way or why I should care. If you don't give me framing then you aren't getting a ballot.

Performance affs/negs: These rounds are fun to watch; I'll be more than happy to be in the back of them.

I have a policy maker paradigm. If you are affirmative, explain to me why your solution is the best to the overarching problem, while addressing any concerns that are brought up by the negative team. If you are the negative team, explain to me why the affirmative's plan is not going to solve the overarching problem and/or negative consequences that can result from affirmative action.

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

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.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.