Background

I was not involved in debate in High School, so I don't have a lot of that type of background. I got involved in judging tournaments in 2014 when my oldest son starting debating. He was involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I am an Electrical Engineer, 20 years of experience. I have been very active in politics over the years, being county and state delegate several years for the local political party, representing my district. I have judged a lot of rounds over the last year and a half; probably 40 or more. I am familiar with the process of a LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my son and I discuss topics and debate philosophies quite a bit at home.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. Being an engineer, I have made a spreadsheet to help me in my judging. Since I type much faster than I write, I use my laptop to help me keep track of the flow of the debate. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those in my spreadsheet and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I have devised a number scheme to score each contention and then add (or take away) points from that score based on your ability to convince me of the validity of your contention (or to get me to agree to your attacks on your opponent's contentions). At the end of the debate, I use these scores to help me determine who won the debate, because that debater convinced me the most of his contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, to a point. I have tried to judge policy debates where "spewing" is the norm. I don't like spewing. Fast talking is one thing, but spewing is for the birds (I'll never judge a policy debate again). One thing you better be sure of is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and score them very highly for your opponent when they are dropped. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which is a big score for your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I also tend to give Affirm the benefit of the doubt because of the disadvantage in speech times, in the interest of fairness. However, I also tend to hit Neg harder if they miss because of their time advantage on speeches. That by no means implies I agree more often with Affirm or Neg; just a little benefit of the doubt in the interest of fairness.

I consider most topics to be optimal with 3 contentions. Less than that doesn't seem to cover enough to prove a position, while more than that seems to cause time problems with speeches. You certainly are free to use as many contentions as you like, but in my opinion, 3 is about right.

Timing of speeches

I am fine with you timing your own speeches. I keep time, and my timer is law, be it faster or slower than your timer. I also claim the right to allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off. But, again, it's my call. If you keep talking after the timer, I wont stop you. I just start knocking off speaker points.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I don't care if they do or not; I don't disclose or provide verbal feedback. Tournaments go way too long as it is without extra time expended in disclosure or feedback. Additionally, if you lost, you almost certainly consider me a fool and worthy of adamant debate proving you are more than worthy of winning. I don't come to tournaments to debate you. Just judge. So even if you see me wandering around afterwards and ask me how you did, I am going to tell you I don't remember (which is probably true), and either way, I don't want to debate. Even if you are sincere and would take constructive criticism, my memory (and desire) just isn't good enough to give you want you seek. Take my written remarks on the ballot for what they are and that will be what you get. I will make an effort to be as detailed as I can as to why I voted for or against you. Sometimes it is obvious who won; sometimes it is a hard choice and I wish I didn't have to make either of you lose. But there can only be one winner and one of you will hate me for my position. I prefer to be well within the confines of anonymity when you find out what I said bad about you.

Speaker Points

I generally take the 30 points you receive and break them down by speech (Affirm has 4 speeches, 1 cross ex, so 6 points per event. Neg has 3 and 1 cross ex,, so 7.5 per event). Depending on your performance during that event, I rate you based on performance in that event. I may dock points for being disorganized, being rude, being belligerent, not speaking clearly, etc. based on how you perform in each event. I rarely take off more than 1 point per event. So a good solid performance in each event will garner a good speaker point score.

Major annoyances

Most techniques of debate I am fine with. Contention is fine, but rudeness rubs me wrong. Some inadvertant rudness can be expected and it grates me a bit, but I won't nail you too hard. Unless you are really bad. One thing really irritates me in debates: the "straw man" technique. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It really gets my goat. One debate I judged, a debater deployed the straw man technique and I stopped caring what either person's criteria or points even were. Straw man is dishonest, unfair, and wrong! If you use it in a debate I judge, you guarantee a loss. It can happen inadvertently, and I understand that, but pounding it home will waste your time and mine.

Background

I am an assistant coach with Venture High School, but my debate experience is entirely from the past 2-3 years. I did not compete in High School, but I have been heavily involved in the past couple of years. I focus on both LD and PF, with a slight emphasis on LD. I am heavily involved in politics, but my content area is in the STEM fields, so I do not have a heavy philosophy background, although I will follow the arguments if they are clear. I am a very linear, logically-minded person who will flow the round as you go.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow, although I am willing to entertain more progressive arguments and will adapt my flow as needed. I will flow on my computer because I type much faster and more clearly than I write. As a result, my flows are rather detailed, focusing on the substance of what was said rather than just the big idea. I have three main things that I look for as I judge:

• I will evaluate the winner of the V/C debate and then evaluate remaining contentions against that V/C. You can win a round after losing the V/C debate if your contentions will still win under your opponent's V/C, but you will not win even with excellent contentions if they do not support the winning V/C.
• I ask for clear, well articulated rebuttals to your opponent's points. Please refer to the contention number that you are attempting to rebut or bolster in later speeches so that I know where you are looking on the flow. Also, points raised in CX must be addressed in the speaches in order to hold any weight.
• Finally, please use the last minute or so of your final speech to provide clear and compelling voters. This is the most important part of the debate, in my opinion. I want you to tell me why you won at the end. It is whoevers voters that I feel are most supported that is likely to win the round.

Timing

I am fine with you timing your own speeches, but I will keep official time. I will allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off, but do not try to start a new one or I will cut you off. In CX, I will let the conversation go to a natural break and then stop you. When I make it clear that it is time to stop, stop.

I will keep official prep time, however, I will not stop you after a certain amount of time. So, if you wish to budget your time and only use a set amount at a time, please keep an eye on that yourself. In other words, don't ask me for one minute of prep; just ask for prep and I will stop the timer when you are ready to speak.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I make it a policy to not disclose, regardless of the tournament's policy. There are rare exceptions where I have witnessed a truly remarkable debate and feel like I can provide some input on strengthening the cases, but those are few and far between. You are free to ask for feedback, but I will decline nearly all of the time. I will never disclose a winner. I do work to make my feedback and RFD very clear and detailed.

Speaker Points

A 30 is a very clear, well-polished, internally consistent, well-supported speech. I give out way more 29s than 30s. A 27-28 is fairly average. A weak, faltering speech is often a 25-26. Not using up all of your time will definitely knock down your speaker points. I am very comfortable with awarding low-point wins. In my mind, the quality of the speech and the strength of the arguments are totally separate concepts.

Speed

I am okay with some speed, but it needs to be clear enough that I can understand it and not so fast that I cannot flow. I don't appreciate speed for the sake of confusing opponents or trying to introduce more arguments than can possibly be responded to. If I can't get everything down, you risk losing the fact that it was said.

Civility

I appreciate a good, heated debate. I am fine with some interpersonal clash during CX. However, I find debaters who are smug and condescending to others to be hard to watch. You will definitely lose speaker points for this. While debate is supposed to be confrontational, it still needs to be fun for all involved. Be sure to have the sportsmanship component of debate in the back of your mind during round.

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming