Though I've been a PF middle school coach for four years, I consider myself a novice/lay-type judge. I do flow so I appreciate clear signposts, warrants and unique and impactful evidence. I am very much interested to see speakers attempt or execute innovation in form and style using humor, pathos and engaging impacts. I believe speakers who believe what they're arguing. I frown upon speaker dispositions that are communicated in a seemingly unfriendly, impatient or unkind manner.

Currently debating at Brooklyn Technical High School.

I am very flow-centric. I will decide a winner based on the flow. So if it's not on the flow, then I will not count it in my reason for decision.

In order to make sure I have flowed everything, make sure you speak loudly and clearly. I am fine with speed as I understand you need to fit in as many arguments as you can. However, I am definitely not a fan of mumbling or speaking so fast that I cannot make out the words you are saying. If I can't hear you for any reason, I am not going to write it in the flow. I will give you one warning if I am unable to hear you, after that it is up to you to make sure you articulate your speech.

You can keep your own time for speeches and prep. I will also be keeping time too. If your time runs out, you are more than welcome to finish your sentence. If you are carded, I expect you to have the card ready for me or your opponent in an extremely short amount of time. If you cannot give a card within a minute or two, I will not count that piece of evidence in the flow.

When making arguments, I really value empirical evidence and being able to link that evidence, or any type of evidence for that matter back to your argument. If you fail to do that, I will not take that piece of evidence into as much consideration.

For Cross, I am a huge fan of clashes, however remember to show not only the fist to your opponent but respect as well. I will not tolerate disrespect to your opponent. However, do not let that stop you from using your cross wisely and clashing. Note that I do not flow cross but I will flow a point made in cross if you bring it up in the following speech.

I would like to see signposting done throughout the round, but in my eyes it is the most important in rebuttals. If you are using a card to refute a claim they made, make sure to briefly tell me why that is important before moving on to the next refutation.

For speaker points, the lowest I'll give is a 26 if you came prepared and ready to debate but you may not have the skills to execute it. I'll give you a 30 if you are a really eloquent or persuasive speaker. I like public speaking so I really value a good speaker.

Feedback- I do give verbal feedback, but I will have a more detailed answer on the ballot. I really do not like people arguing with my reason for decision and I will dock points off your speaks. However, if you are polite and want to ask a question, I'll be happy to answer you.

Just lock in.

Theory
Theory shells read with "internal links" are annoying and repetitive. For example, if ground is good, you should just explain in the context of how your loss of ground was unfair in the debate taking place.
I like a HEAVY standards debate and default to reasonability. Competing Interpretations should be justified

I don't like blimpy theory args.


K's
Yes. Do it well. I'm pretty comfortable with whatever you got as long as we don't hide behind cards. Explain your argument, what it means for me as a judge at a debate tournament, and what my ballot is doing in the back of the room. Tell me what you think an argument is and why you've won it.

Framing

In front of me, the money is in the substance/impact debate. I don't care how you do it, but the earlier you do it the better. Directly comparing the consequences/ ethical issues within the debate is fine. Of course, do what you do.

I like good framework and am very inclined to vote for it, if it is very good and impactful


Don't be blippy,
Don't read your logic homework in front of me
You can really do whatever you want in/with your CX time. I enjoy the show and no I'm not going to flow it. Make moments count. I will be paying attention.

Topicality

I think the Aff should be related to the topic in some way. What that is remains up to the debaters, but I am open to voting on a T interpretation that holds the Aff to a specific reading of the resolution based on the text of the topic you received before the round.


Policy Affs
Please slow down at the plan /counterplan text because I write them down. 2AC's should always include a framing issue against the K or anything with a heavy emphasis on timeframe. 2AR's should have impact calculus (timeframe, magnitude, ethical preclusion). I'll probably call for a lot of stuff after the debate, but please don't give it to me during the debate.

DA/CP

I love evidence heavy , well impacted disad debates as net benefits to a counterplan. I appreciate this portion of debate tech more than any other.
PICs are more than welcome , but you should probably only get a single conditional one to have the most game on the theory debate. Once you get past 2 conditional items in the 1NC, the theory game is up in the air for who wins it.

Tech Preferences for PF

Collapsing/Crystallizing - give me 1-4 points that you want me to evaluate - what's most important.

Weighing - I like clarity about what is important to your team and why your arguments are more important/impactful. You need to tell me why your arguments have more magnitude, probability, or are more pressing.

Organization/Signposting - be clean and clear.

Theory
Theory shells read with "internal links" are annoying and repetitive. For example, if ground is good, you should just explain in the context of how your loss of ground was unfair in the debate taking place.
I like a HEAVY standards debate and default to reasonability. Competing Interpretations should be justified

I don't like blimpy theory args.


K's
Yes. Do it well. I'm pretty comfortable with whatever you got as long as we don't hide behind cards. Explain your argument, what it means for me as a judge at a debate tournament, and what my ballot is doing in the back of the room. Tell me what you think an argument is and why you've won it.

Framing

In front of me, the money is in the substance/impact debate. I don't care how you do it, but the earlier you do it the better. Directly comparing the consequences/ ethical issues within the debate is fine. Of course, do what you do.

I like good framework and am very inclined to vote for it, if it is very good and impactful


Don't be blippy,
Don't read your logic homework in front of me
You can really do whatever you want in/with your CX time. I enjoy the show and no I'm not going to flow it. Make moments count. I will be paying attention.

Topicality

I think the Aff should be related to the topic in some way. What that is remains up to the debaters, but I am open to voting on a T interpretation that holds the Aff to a specific reading of the resolution based on the text of the topic you received before the round.


Policy Affs
Please slow down at the plan /counterplan text because I write them down. 2AC's should always include a framing issue against the K or anything with a heavy emphasis on timeframe. 2AR's should have impact calculus (timeframe, magnitude, ethical preclusion). I'll probably call for a lot of stuff after the debate, but please don't give it to me during the debate.

DA/CP

I love evidence heavy , well impacted disad debates as net benefits to a counterplan. I appreciate this portion of debate tech more than any other.
PICs are more than welcome , but you should probably only get a single conditional one to have the most game on the theory debate. Once you get past 2 conditional items in the 1NC, the theory game is up in the air for who wins it.

Tech Preferences for PF

Collapsing/Crystallizing - give me 1-4 points that you want me to evaluate - what's most important.

Weighing - I like clarity about what is important to your team and why your arguments are more important/impactful. You need to tell me why your arguments have more magnitude, probability, or are more pressing.

Organization/Signposting - be clean and clear.

I currently attend Oklahoma State University and serve on the Student Government Senate. I did Speech and Debate all 4 years at Guymon High School.

I am a very, genuinely unbiased judge. I have/will vote for and against any different politics and beliefs.

I believe the sport of debate should be who has the better argument substantially, as well as who explains and presents it better.

While yes I have plenty of debate experience, its far better for you to do the explanation work for me to better your chances of success.

Any argument is a valid argument in my book (policy, critical, framework, etc.) its again your job to make the case to me.

I will also emphasize that you emphasize your claim before you either read evidence or give your analytics/explanation (i.e emphasize your tag with a short tag). I'm good with speed for cards, etc. (I can keep up with Eminem).

Don't be afraid to question the other side's evidence and warrants. I feel today people just give the other side the full merit of cards; challenge their validity!

Sportsmanship is something I highly value!

Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor!!

I am a public forum debater at Brooklyn Tech with a parli background. I pay attention to how well you weigh impacts, how well you refuted the other side (no dropped arguments) and obviously who was most convincing in content. Please be respectful.