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.

4 Year High School Policy Debater and 2 time NFL National Qualifier in late outrounds.

My experience is mostly with Policy arguments on the Affirmative and negative. I have plenty of experience answering and judging K's but I was never that deep in the Kritikal literature myself so you will want to make sure you explain it well.

I will evaluate the round based on the flow - do what you do best. I love a good theory debate.

Make sure to slow down on your tags, particularly if I'm not on the email chain - I do still believe this is a speech activity and you have to actually read the cards - speed is fine but make sure you're actually intelligible.

Any questions? Ask.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

I did policy debate for 4 years at Sioux Falls Washington High School in South Dakota. I primarily debated policy style arguments, but I was familiar with debating the K.

Email: mckeekyl@sas.upenn.edu - if you've got a thread going I'd appreciate being on it!

Policy Debate:

I default to a policymaker paradigm, but I am willing to listen to all arguments. If you want to run an argument and you feel like you are good at debating that argument, then read it.

On speed:
I'm alright with listening to somewhat fast debates. On a scale of 1-10, I'd probably be a 7.

On DA's:
I really like interesting DA's that aren't generic. However, I understand generics are necessary, and I will vote on them. I also like impact calc IF it's quite specific. Magnitude = Huge, Timeframe = Now, and Probability = 100% is silly. I would prefer impact calc with actual numbers.

On T's:
I default to competing interpretations as I feel examining different definitions and their merits is an important way to evaluate the resolution. I normally vote on T if the case is actually non-topical, but I can be convinced otherwise if the definitions are satisfactory. The standards debate is also pretty important to me. If you can prove abuse, it will be much easier to get my ballot on T.

On CP's:
I also really enjoy creative CP's, although I find myself not voting for CP's too often. It seems like CP's are too often a timesuck, or it isn't explained well enough to get my ballot. The perm debate is important, and the CP should be competitive, although it doesn't necessarily have to be non-topical. However, I am less likely to vote for PIC's than I would for other types of CP's.

On Theory:
I don't like to vote on theory unless it is dropped or mishandled. I will default to rejecting the argument, although I can be persuaded to vote on theory provided there is actual abuse in the round.

On K's:
I am familiar with the structure and processes of K's, but I have not read a lot of K literature. That being said, if the K is very theory heavy, make sure to give an explanation that I would be able to understand. I think the K can be a great way to garner offense, but it shows if you are not well versed in your own K. If you are going to read a K in front of me, make sure that you've read up on the literature, as it shows if you are uninformed. I also really enjoy interesting K's, and a great K debate will always keep the round fresh.

On non-traditional debate/K-Aff's:
As kritikal affirmatives become more common, I find myself more and more willing to vote for them. However, if the K aff is very theory heavy, make sure that I get a good explanation. I am willing to listen to and vote on framework if you are the negative team, but I will vote for whoever best debates the framework flow. Negative teams that engage the affirmative are also much more likely to get my ballot.

Basically, run what you want and run it well.

PF Debate:

Despite judging more PF rounds in recent years, I am primarily used to debating and judging policy debate. I'm willing to listen to a larger variety of arguments as a result. There may be useful information in my policy paradigm above.

I vote on what is left in the final focus - a very good ff to me shows me the world of your case vs. the case of your opponent. Make it easy for me to vote for you - tell me why you win - I don't want to have to do a lot of work to decide a round, and I find teams that are the best are ones that can give me 1-3 reasons why I have to vote for them.

Impact calc is good in the FF. Given the short speech times in PF, there are often dropped arguments or ones that aren't fully refuted - tell me which impacts are most important, and why they might outweigh your opponents.

I like interesting and new arguments - if you think you have a unique argument, I'd love to hear it.

I'm totally fine with speed, but this is PF debate - there's a bit more to be said about convincingly extending your case and refuting the opponents case than just spreading and hoping for dropped arguments.

LD Debate:

I have only seen and/or judged a few LD debates - I'm likely unfamiliar with the topic and will need some greater explanation if your case if very heavy on theory or an unconventional philosophy. I'm fine with speed here, but again, if it's something I don't entirely understand, too much speed might make it difficult for me to follow along.

Be nice to each other, and have fun!

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.