Personal Info

22-year-old KU grad in Poli Sci and Creative Writing. Currently work for a business immigration firm. He/Him.

Debate/Judging History

Previous 4-year HS policy debater at Topeka High, a participant in multiple state tourneys, and one national tourney in PFD.

- Experienced being around Varsity/advanced circuits

Had/have experience running most arguments, including Ks/theory/more technical arguments.

Since graduating, I've judged a few tournaments here and there, Varsity and Open, but not for two years.

- Probably not as warmed up to speeding as I used to be, but going fast is completely fine (as long as there's clarity, of course).

- Haven't heard this topic yet, though I'm familiar with the language of the topic sentence itself.

General Preferences

As far as procedure is concerned, most subjective practices (open vs. closed CX, disclosure, prep time calculation, etc.) I do not care about and can be decided mutually between the teams. Unless otherwise stated/mandated by the tournament.

- If done outside of the room, before I'm there, please notify me. Expectations should be set before things start.

As long as the general flow of the debate is not disrupted and no fairness is harmed, everything is fairly OK.

Please be nice to each other, including your own teammates. Creating a safe environment is most important to me.

- Respecting pronouns, etc., is expected!

Argument Preferences

Similar to the procedure, I don't want to steer the direction of the debate too much, and don't have argument preferences.

Theory, T, Ks, CPs, and anything else I'm missing are all permitted as long as a good argument is made.

- Plans are not necessary, but please don't forego them just to be zany.

- Any new(er) arguments I'm probably unfamiliar with, so please don't assume I know everything! Make the argument clear!

Tell me how I should vote.

- I flow, so I should be aware of any dropped arguments, but you're the one that makes them a voter.

Now that all of that pressure is over—good luck to everyone and please have some fun! :)

I am stock issues judge, but vote using standards and voters provided by the teams in the round. If neither stock issues or a voting paradigm are established by the competing teams I will utilize a policy maker paradigm.

Structure and labelling is very important to me in my evaluation of arguments. Topicality and disadvantages should be structured and labelled for me to give weight to them. I expect at minimum a definition, standards, and voters for topicality; and a link, brink, and an impact for a disadvantage argument.

Please emphasize the tagline, source, and date of your evidence so that the point you are making is clear.

I do not mind counterplans or Kritiks , but they must be ran properly and not treated as throw-away arguments or I will vote against you.