Background about me: I debated LD for 5 years for Hopkins High School in MN (2009-2014) and coached for Loyola Blakefield High School in Maryland for 2 years (2014-2016). As a debater I had moderate success, breaking at most bid tournaments, reaching 6 bid rounds, and qualified to NSDA Nationals my sophomore year. I am currently a staffer on Capitol Hill.

I am old and have only just started judging again. I do not know all the new trends/abbreviations and I am not great with speed. Please start at 40% and ramp up (especially since WIFI and computers can be weird). Maybe don't use some weird trick or spike in the round, or at least be very, very clear about what you're doing and how it impacts the round as early as possible. I like Ks and philosophy, policy is fine, theory and tricks are not my thing. I want to be on the email chain: Berman.mia11@gmail.com and if you ask for my email I am going to assume you didn't read my paradigm, which will make me sad :(

Re: Theory and T, it is not my thing and I don't think I would be great at evaluating it. HOWEVER, if there is real abuse don't let my inexperience dissuade you from running it, just explain why it's needed. For instance, on the LAWs topic, if someone runs an Aff about landmines, I think the Neg is justified in running T. I just don't recommend Theory or T as a strategy in front of me. I also do not tend to find Theory/T compelling against Ks, but you may be able to convince me otherwise.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The below paradigm is from the last time I judged: 2015. Don't hold me to any of it and ask questions about it before the round.

I advise caution when discussing sensitive issues. I will listen to these arguments, but would appreciate if you first offer a trigger warning and/or ask your opponent whether or not they would be comfortable debating it. This is not an excuse for you (if you are the opponent) to stop them from running this argument if you simply don't feel like debating it, but a way of not having to be triggered by such a sensitive issue in round. If you are opposing an argument like this in round, I ask you to be sensitive and respectful in how you respond to it. There are non-offensive and smart arguments to make, or you can simply preclude the arguments, or argue why you cannot argue against these. Happy to clarify this before the beginning of the round.

TLDR; Don't be offensive or rude.

If you can't find what you're looking for in here, feel free to ask before the round.

Short version:

--I will yell clear/slow if needed If I have to yell clear more than 3 times in a single speech you're getting 27.5 speaks max
--Please don’t run disclosure theory in front of me, it will result in poor speaks
--If you run "must run a plan" or "AFC,” you will get poor speaks
--Being sketchy is not ok
--I reserve the right to dock speaks for extreme rudeness or for being offensive
--Weird arguments/alternative approaches to debate and the topic are fun and good as long as you explain them
--Extinction good is fine
--Have fun, be nice

Long version:

Theory
I default reasonability, RVIs, and drop the argument. These are just defaults and can be overridden, however I personally find theory silly. If you like to run theory as the A strat I am not the judge for you. I will listen to fairness and education aren't voters arguments. If there is genuine abuse, I am glad to listen to shells that accurately point out the abuse and why it is bad. That being said, if you can prove why the abuse isn't there, I will vote on that too. Semantic "I meets" are silly and I have a low threshold for responses to those. Furthermore, I do not find theory against K's particularly persuasive. Specifically if the debater running the K makes arguments how your conception of fairness or education is coming from the dominate powers perspective, I will often find myself persuaded to look at the K before theory. In these situations, I would rather you either engage the K or preclude it with your case. I think some of the arguments that are often made against Ks and put into a theory format can potentially be persuasive, but when structured as a theory shell they become much easier to beat. (If you have questions about what I mean or how these arguments would function, feel free to ask)

Larp/Util
I didn't run straight up larp much as a debater, but that's not to say I won't judge it like anything else, however I am probably not the best to evaluate these rounds. Don't assume I know the technicalities of these arguments and make sure to explain how everything functions.

K's/Critical cases
Go ahead! As a debater, especially towards the end of my career, this was what I enjoyed running most. That being said, if I don't understand it after CX, I can't expect your opponent to understand it either and will have a difficult time voting on it. Don't be purposefully confusing; make it clear how the case functions and where I am supposed to vote. If you are running something denser than fem/cap/colonialism/anthro, please try to go a bit slower than normal to make sure it is clear. If I have to say clear/slow several times and I still look confused, there is a problem and you likely won't be able to fix it in later speeches.

Speaker Points
I assign speaker points based off diversity and development of argumentation, fluency/clearness, and general disposition/attitude. Humor can go a long way, as long as it is not at another's expense. If I have to yell clear more than 3 times I will begin to dock speaks, .5 each additional time.

Dense Philosophical Positions
In college I majored in philosophy and I find it fascinating, however I don't know every philosophical position and don't read your case at me like I do. If you know your position is more obscure and denser, make sure to slow down and be clear about explaining it in cross-ex and your rebuttals.

Sketchy
Don't. If you're going to do it, own up to it.

Overall Round Evaluation
I evaluate the round in layers. I tend to care more about the line by line but can be swayed by the big picture. I appreciate weighing, it is going to have to happen at some point, so either you can do it for me, or I will do it and you will likely be upset. Don't waste your time on arguments that don't matter; only go for what you need to in order to win. If that takes the entire time, use it. If you can win the round in 2 minutes in the 2N, I would rather you sit down than ramble for the remainder of your time.

Overall, I am here to judge you and hopefully the round can be enjoyable and educational for all of us. Choose well! :)

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

Background (updated 9/29/23)

General - I graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 2018 with majors in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Math/Stats and a minor in Africana Studies. I am currently a student at the Tuck School of Business and in a combined MD-MBA program with the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (class of 2025)

Competitive - 5 years of circuit policy (2009-2014) at Centennial High School (as a part of Capitol Debate, yes they used to do policy mainly believe it or not) being coached by Daryl Burch. 2014 TOC Champion in policy. I debated 4 years of American parliamentary (APDA) and British parliamentary (BP) at Johns Hopkins University (2014-2018).

Coaching - I have not been in any coaching capacity since the start of the 2020-2021 school year (med school will do that to you). I've judged 1 tournament a year for the past 3 years (2020-2023) and have not worked at a summer camp since 2014.

Philosophy (updated 9/29/23)

If there is a chain I want to be on it - mkoo7000@gmail.com

I do NOT open speech docs until the debate ends, speaking clearly is key and if I can't understand you, I will just discount the arguments rather than opening the speech doc.

I have very little clue what the topic is, please assume I don't know common acronyms/terminology related to the topic.

In 90% of rounds, I submit my ballot within 3 minutes of the final speech ending. Here are the major implications:

- Clarity (in speaking, organization, and explanation) is my first priority. The main reason I've realized I submit my decisions quickly is not because the round is lopsided/underwhelming in quality, but because of the degree to which I value communication during the round. The team who communicated their story into my head while I am listening to their speech usually prevails over the team who may have had a warrant that I barely flowed while struggling to keep up with their communication. I will be actively deciding who is currently winning and exactly what I think the other team has to do to undermine that as the round goes on, thus leaving most questions answered in my head as the final speech ends. I concede that there is potential for error in my approach, but I figured that I would rather reward the more persuasive team rather than digging through and examining each and every technicality.

- My substantive preferences are very fluid. I have debated and judged almost every type of substantive arguments at the highest levels of high school competition so my real preference is to do what you think you do best. But as nobody is truly a blank slate, I have some explicit preferences and substantive decision-making quirks clarified below for both LD and policy.

- Cards are only read when their quality/warranting are explicitly contested. The corollary to this is that warranting explained during the speeches will always trump the existence of a card that may answer those warrants in my decision-making process.

- I put a heavier emphasis onto the final rebuttals in my decision-making process.

I am a STICKLER for timeliness during rounds

- Efficient and proactive conduct in evidence exchange and round preparation/conduct will be rewarded with speaker points.

- Flight 2 - I expect the first speech to be sent and ready to spoken, immediately after my RFD from flight 1 ends. I encourage/expect you to set up in the room as soon as the final speech ends (or even before in between speeches) and will not perceive the disturbance as rude.

- For LD especially - specifying which parts of speech docs your opponents did/didn't read requires prep time and is NOT a courtesy I am willing to allow during dead time. Please do not flow off the speech doc and flow the speech proper. However I will be sympathetic to clarifications after unclear speeches.

General Substantive Preferences (all formats)

- Impact comparison/explanation/tangibility is the first thing I sort through when making an RFD.

- Tech>truth - protection must be WARRANTED or probably won't be evaluated.

- If the best arguments are deployed on both sides, I lean neg (55-45) on whether a K aff gets a perm - the best arguments are usually nowhere close to being deployed.

- If you're going to go for the K, you better talk about the case and explain the implications for winning framework in the 2NR.

- I consider framework and the alternative to be 2 sides of the same coin. I think either can make up for a weakness in the other.

- Solvency advocates for CPs will make me neg leaning on theory/competition. If the solvency advocate is in the context of the aff, it will make it very hard to persuade me that the CP is theoretically illegitimate as I think the value of research/education incentivized by these kinds of CPs vastly outweigh any fairness concerns.

- For policy, very neg leaning on conditionality (up to 2), barely aff leaning on 50-state, international, and object fiat, really don't care about anything else.

LD specific preferences

- Please disclose immediately when requested if the pairing is out, EVEN if you are in flight 2. I think pre-round disclosure is educational and think the "30-minutes before the round" standard is arbitrary and silly. Getting me to vote on this is highly unlikely (more on this below) but I will happily reward/punish teams who point out this happened with speaker points (+0.2/-0.2 respectively).

- I am not a fan of theory/tricks/phil arguments. This is primarily due to the incomprehensible speed/clarity at which these arguments are usually deployed. I do not open the speech doc while flowing and will not refer to it to flow warrants I missed. I also find reasonability to be an extremely persuasive argument for most theory/tricks arguments (don't disclose cites, you wore shoes, etc). Arguments this does not apply to are theory arguments common in policy (conditionality bad, aff didn't disclose at ALL, 50-state fiat, PICs bad, international fiat, etc).

- I think the existence of a time skew biased in favor of the neg to be a persuasive argument in LD (take advantage of this in theory debates!!). Due to this, I find myself being more lenient to the 1AR/2AR in terms of tech (ie, not being super strict on dropped args, focusing more on the story than minute tech details). In high level debates, aff teams NEED to collapse in the 2AR to be able to win.

- Conditionality bad much more persuasive to me in LD comparatively to how I view it in policy. 2 or less in policy and 1 or less in LD are usually easily defensible to me.

Ethics/Procedural Challenges
- If you believe the other team is guilty of an ethics violation and I am notified, the debate will end there and I will determine if you are correct. If I notice an ethics violation, I will not stop the round but decide the round based on it after it ends if I believe it was sufficiently egregious. If there is an easy way for me to access speech docs, I will follow along at random moments during the debate.
- Card clipping/cross reading – Any form of misrepresenting the amount of evidence you have read is considered card clipping. It is your opponents’ burden to ask for a marked copy of your speech but it is yours to make sure that is ready IMMEDIATELY. This means if you forget to physically mark during a speech, you better have a crystal clear memory because you will lose if you mis-mark evidence. Audibly marking during a speech is acceptable as long as you explicitly say the words “mark it at ‘x’”. Intention does not matter. I understand if you were ignorant or didn’t mean to but you should have to take the loss to make sure you are MUCH MORE careful in future. Video or audio recordings are a necessity if you want to pose a challenge about card clipping. Anything that is 3 words or less (no more than twice a speech) I am willing to grant as a minor mistake and will drop the accusing team for being petty. Double highlighting is not card clipping, just make sure your opponents know which color you are reading, a simple clarification question can resolve this.
- Evidence fabrication – it is hard to prove this distinctively from evidence that cannot be accessed – if a team is caught fabricating (making it up) evidence they will lose.

Problematic not an ethics violation (these can be persuasive arguments to win my ballot)
- Evidence that cannot be accessed – this is necessary for teams to be able to successfully refute your research. If this is proved, I will ignore the evidence and treat arguments related to it as merely claims in my decisionmaking
- Out of context cards – this will seriously hurt your ethos and your opponents will probably definitively win their competing claim
- Misdisclosure – the only reason why this isn’t above is because there is almost no falsifiable method to prove that a disclosure wasn’t honest – this is probably the most serious of this category and can garner you major leeway in my decision making if you can successfully prove how it has impacted your ability to debate this round.
- If I catch you stealing prep (talking during dead time to your partner about the round, messing around on your computer, etc), I will dock half of your remaining prep time

Long ramble (this is the first draft of my judge policy I wrote when I was a young first year out that I just didn't want to delete because it's fun to keep. Only read this if you're bored or have too much time on your hands, a lot of it is probably outdated)

- The most influential aspect of determining how to pref a relatively new judge was seeing how they debated, talk to people who’ve judged/watched me (if they still remember)before to see what I rolled with in debates.
- I always enjoyed/found much more helpful the longer/thorough judge philosophies so be prepared to read a lot of my thoughts/rants that are coming
- Daryl Burch (coach) is the single biggest influential figure in my development as a debater. Srinidhi Muppalla (partner for 2 years) would probably come second. Go look at their philosophies.
- I was a 2A for 3 years and then a 2N for my senior year – I have read affirmatives all over the spectrum (complete performance, 10 impact policy affs, k affs that defended a plan) – and went for whatever on the neg (at one point my senior year, some team asked me past 2NR’s and I answered: T-economic engagement, give back the land K, black feminism K, asian counteradvocacy, warming good + geoenginnering CP, mexico politics DA, process CP, dedev, afropessimism K, warming good + politics DA, warming good + politics DA, framework)

Top Level Thoughts
- I see debate as an intellectual forum where individuals come to advocate for some course of action – the type of action desired is for the debaters to choose and discuss and for me to evaluate whether it’s a good or bad idea – note, this means you MUST defend SOMETHING (even if it’s nothing)
- Ethos is underrated – most judges know which why they will decide right after the round ends and spend the time after justifying and double checking his/her choice. Your persuasive appeal in every way you conduct yourself throughout the round is a massive factor in this. Know what you’re talking about, but more importantly, sound like you know what you’re talking about and show that you EXPECT to win.
- Speak clearly – if you can’t you should be doing a LOT of drills (trust me I was there too) – Judges who didn’t let me know they couldn’t understand me assuming that was my burden annoyed me to no end – I will be very explicit in letting you know if I can’t understand you – after the second time I call clear, I will not evaluate any cards/arguments I call clear on afterwards – I'll flow the next of your cards if I can understand them, this would be strategic as then the other team is responsible for answering them
- Speed = arguments I THINK the other team is responsible for answering – if it’s not on my flow then it’s not an argument so do your best to make sure it gets there
- I am awful at keeping a straight face while judging – use this to your advantage
- Set in stone – speech times, only one team will win – everything else is up for debate
- An argument is a claim and a warrant – dropped claims are NOT dropped arguments – dropped ARGUMENTS are true and you should avoid dropping ARGUMENTS – my understanding of rejoinder is that claims can sufficiently be answered by claims
- Conceding an opponent’s argument makes it the truest argument in the round – use this to your advantage
- I don’t protect the 2NR unless explicitly asked to – specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to
- Being aggressive = good. Being aggressive and wrong = bad. Being mean = worst. Debate should strive to be a safe space. There is a fine line between a politics of discomfort (which can be productive) and being violent toward another individual. This fine line is up to subjective determination by a “know it when I see it” test.
- I do believe that arguments about a debater’s actions/choices outside of the current round do have a place in some forms of debate. My biggest problem is that most of these arguments are non falsifiable and really impossible to prove. I think that it is important to be genuine but do know that debate is also a strategic game where strategy can conflict with genuine advocacy. Once again I’ll employ a subjective “know it when I see it test” and will update my thoughts on this issue as I judge more debates.
- I think all debaters should play an proactive role in doing their own prefs as soon as possible – it is quite the rewarding learning experience that helps you learn your judges
- Cards can undisputedly settle factual questions – analysis (including analysis about cards) settles everything else
- I will only call for a piece of evidence if there is an explicit cite referenced during the explanation of the argument – If I am asking questions like “Can you give me the piece of evidence you think says ‘x’,” then I am either doing annoyed or the debate is way too close for me not to double check.
- Debate's a technical game - do line by line and answer arguments - don't be surprised if I make decisions that seem debatable based upon technical concessions
- Assuming all positions are well prepared and executed close to as well as possible this would probably be my favorite to least favorite 2NR's - DA + case, DA + CP, advantage CP + DA, topic K, any strat with generic impact turns, any strat with politics, any strat with a process CP, generic K, topicality
- Cheap shots will only be voting issues if you give me no other option - what I mean about this is you better go HARD or go home, anything under 1 minute of explanation/warrants/asking for protection will probably be dismissed as a rule of thumb - cheap shots are not good arguments that were dropped, those don't apply to this section, but argument that are sufficiently stupid that they can only be won because they were dropped
- I'm super lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine - if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Framework
- I honestly feel like this section determines a lot about how people pref judges these days
- I will start off by saying that I am a firm believer in ideological reflexivity – people go a long way in trying to understand each other’s arguments and even embrace them instead of crying exclusion/trying to exclude.
- But yes, if you win the tech battle I will vote for framework
- Flipping neg greatly hurts your ability to go for ANY arguments based upon procedural fairness
- Real world examples from the debate community go a long way in proving points in these types of debates – use them to your advantage
- I think debate is most educational when it is about the topic – however I think there are multiple ways to defend the topic
- Arguments about procedural fairness are the most strategic/true in my opinion – however impacting them with just fairness is unpersuasive and you should couch your impacts upon the education (or lack of) from debates with little clash
- It is worth noting that I have stopped running procedural based framework arguments by the end of my senior year – however this was mainly due to the fact that I was very bad at going for framework and instead found much more strategic to engage affirmatives on the substance of their arguments (because I had a genius coach who was very good at thinking of ways to do that)
- If an aff defends a plan I will be EXTREMELY unpersuaded by framework arguments that say the aff can only garner advantages off the instrumental affirmation of the plan

Non-Traditional
- If you know me at all you should know that I am completely fine with these
- CX makes or breaks these debates – yes I do believe that you can garner links/DA’s off of things you say and the way you defend your advocacy even if your evidence says something else
- Always and forever I will prefer that you substantive engage your opponent’s advocacy, you’ll get higher points and the debate will be more educational, fun, and rewarding – however I do understand when there are cases you need to run framework and shiftiness in the way an advocacy is defended can be persuasive to me
- Watch out for contradictions – not only can it make a persuasive theory/substantive argument but I find it devastating when the aff team can concede portions of neg arguments they don’t link to and use it as offense for the other neg arguments
- The permutation is a tricky subject in these debates – I do believe that if the best arguments are made by both sides the negative will probably win that the aff team should not be able to garner a permutation – arguments couched upon opportunity cost and neg ground are the neg pushes I find most persuasive – however the aff arguments I always found persuasive are the substantive benefits that a strategy involving the permutation can accomplish
- Aff teams should have a clear non-arbitrary role of the ballot – these questions can go a long way in framing the debate for both sides
- Evidence can come in many forms whether it be music, personal narratives, poetry, academics, etc – all of it is equally as legit on face so you should not disregard it
- I need to be able to understand your argument – I always had a weakness for understanding high theory based arguments so if that is your mojo just know how to defend it clearly – most rounds you will know your argument the best so you’ll sound good and I’ll know it better than the other team so you should still be fine with running these and picking up my ballot
- Alternative styles of debate is not an excuse for actually debating, do line-by-line, have organized speeches, and answer arguments, I am very flow oriented when judging any type of debate, even if the general thesis of your argument may be superior and all-encompassing, YOU need to be the one to draw connections and explain why the other team's technicalities don't matter

Aff/Case Debate
- Add ons are HELLA underrate - PLEASE utilize them
- 2AC’s and 1AR’s get away with blippy arguments, punish them in the block for them
- K affs with a plan in my opinion were some of the most strategic and fun affs to utilize
- If the neg has an internal link takeout but didn’t answer the terminal impact, that does NOT mean you dropped an impact, logical internal link takeouts can single handidly undermine advantages even without evidence
- Make sure your advantages are reverse casual, many affirmatives fail at this and negative teams should expoit that
- Super specific internal links that get to weird places were always intriguing and show you are a good researcher, they make me happy

Kritik
- Contrary to popular belief, I only went for the K v. a traditional policy aff three times my senior year. I lost 1/3 of those rounds but never lost a round when the 2NR involved a CP/DA/impact turn. Take that how you will

- Explaining a tangible external impact (not only just turns case args, although those are also necessary) is key to winning on the neg, most teams don't do this
- As a debater I’ve always had trouble conceptualizing high theory criticisms, maybe I’m just illiterate but I will have trouble voting for something I can’t explain in my own words
- Don't drop the aff, 90% of K 2NR's that don't directly disprove the aff in some way will probably lose.
- Permutations are pretty strategic, phrase perms as link defense to some of the more totalizing k impacts and defend the speaking of the aff and you should be fine
- Framework and the alt are usually 2 sides of the same coin, please please impact what winning framework means
- I am most familiar with kritiks based in critical race theory, mainstream k’s (neolib, security, cap, etc.) I can also easily understand
- Death good is not a strategic (or true) K in my opinion at all, however there is a BIG difference between death good and fear of death bad

Topicality
- Probably more a fan of competing interpretations
- Reasonability is a reason why the aff could win without offense – It means that the aff is topical to the point that topicality debates should not be preferred over the substantive debate and education that could’ve been had by debating the aff
- Big fan of reject the argument not the team
- I think the T-it's debate on the topic this year is very interesting and could go both ways based on evidence/execution on both sides
- more persuaded by T-miiltary means structures not actions
- effects T is underrated on this topic - try and directly increase exploration/development not some regulation or be prepared to defend that regulation as exploration/development

Disadvantages
- I’m on team link determines the direction of uniqueness
- Politics theory arguments are meh in front of me, I personally never went for them, I just found substantive arguments more strategic
- Short contrived DA’s are strategic but ONLY because aff teams don’t call them out for their bad internal links and only read terminal impact defense to them – fix that and they should go away
- I always loved good impact turn debates, warming good, de-dev, anything
- Turns case arguments are awesome – use them to your advantage and don’t drop them

Counterplans/CP Theory
- Big fan of advantage CP’s – plank them all you want (but kicking planks is probably abusive because every permutation of the diff planks are now another conditional option)
- Solvency advocates go a long way in helping you with theory – I firmly believe that they are good for debate
- I’m an agnostic on the theory of CP’s that compete off of immediacy and certainty
- Agnostic about almost every theory question, more persuaded by the aff on 50 state fiat, international fiat, and object fiat
- Interpretations are good – you should always have one (even if its self serving)
- In my last 3 years of debate, I have NEVER been on a team that went for conditionality for 5 minutes in the 2AR, 2 or less conditional options will be an uphill battle for the aff

Speaker Points
Points are based on two things: content and style. Content is simple, the more your argumentation helps you win a ballot, the better your points. Content includes things like warrant explanation, strategic execution, and strategic vision. Style is as important if not moreso than content. These are all the intangible parts of your debating that garner my respect. This would include organization (very very very VERY important), presence, clarity in delivery, and respect for the activity and your opponents. I also have a horrible sense of humor, by that I mean anything that isn't violently offensive is ok under my book and I'll probably find it funny (this includes awful jokes and bad puns) - take advantage of that

I will shamelessly admit that I was that debater who obsessed over points because I liked to calculate things/wanted to know where in the bracket I was. Ask me afterwards and I’d probably tell you what I gave you

Random bonus like things that would boost your points –
- Successful and badass risks (impact turn an aff for 8 minutes, kicking the case, all-in’s on strategic blunders, etc)
- Making fun of my friends (It has to be funny)
- Make fun of Simon Park or Gabe (It doesn't have to be funny)
- Memes, pokemon references, mainstream anime references, etc
- Leftover speech/prep time (although if you deliver poorly that shows false arrogance which will hurt you more)

Give me the best points and only the best points. You know them, Harambe knows them, and now tell them to me. 

I’m a fourth year college student debating for Johns Hopkins. I debated in Canada in middle school and high school, and have good familiarity with Canadian Parliamentary and British Parliamentary. I currently judge and compete on the APDA circuit and at domestic and international BP tournaments. The following only describes my thoughts on the APDA debate format.

I am not committing myself to abiding by everything written here. It may be outdated or my beliefs may have since changed. This is only intended as a tool to help you understand some of the ways I think about debate. Please ask me if you have any questions.

TL;DR

Tight call standard is a “path to victory”, don’t bother contesting this.
It’s probably not spec. Read more!
Don't spread. At best I simply won't understand you, at worst I will get annoyed and spitefully drop you.
I’ll Google disputed facts.
Please don’t go over time, I will stop listening.
I’ll strike out new arguments in rebuttals myself.
Ask and answer POIs, your speaker points depend on it.

Top Level Thoughts on Debate

I believe debate is a competitive game of skill and strategy, nothing more and nothing less. Though I recognize debate has immense discursive and expressive value, those aren’t the reason that I do debate or value it as an activity. This probably has several implications:

Any arguments that form logically coherent syllogisms are fair game (with the exception of profoundly offensive and hurtful ones)
I will never punish teams that maximize their probability of winning as long as they follow all the rules – absolutely feel free to make sneaky countercases, tactically tight call, MO dump, etc.
I’m unlikely to be receptive to arguments about alternative value that debate provides, or alternate paradigms to evaluate the round besides voting for the team that wins
I will however be receptive to theory arguments about competitiveness; for instance, that I should punitively drop a team to deter anticompetitive behaviour in the future
I believe sportsmanship and competitive integrity are incredibly important, and I will absolutely act to punitively drop teams that I don’t believe are acting in good faith

Theory of Debate

I will ask Points of Clarification if I believe that the information will allow the debaters in the round to have a better round or if I believe that it will allow me to make a more accurate decision. Ideally, this is really not something I should feel compelled to do. If I feel like I have to do so, I will attempt to only ask framing questions that clarify what each side is able to defend rather than factual questions for the sake of not supplying one side with a competitive advantage.
I am agnostic with respect to whether props or visual aids should be allowed, and I will defer to permitting them unless theory arguments are made by either side. To the extent that they are used, they should only ever be used to add clarity and context to a round rather than advancing offense for one team.
The government team has the affirmative burden to win the round and demonstrate that the case/motion is true. If the round is truly inadjudicable, then the opposition team wins the round by default.
I’m highly unreceptive to burden analysis that argues that opposition has to do less than disprove the case. If you believe that the case is tight, then tight call. If you believe that the case is not tight, then defeat it.
Countercases don’t have to be strictly mutually exclusive to be competitive. For example, I would consider it legitimate to countercase a case about spending X dollars on Y with “spend X dollars on Z” or with “spend 0.5X dollars on Y”. Mutual exclusivity can still be an offensive argument for the government team if the implication is that the opposition team hasn’t successfully negate the case/motion with their countercase. The reason “Gov plus a cookie” countercases aren’t legitimate isn’t because of mutual exclusivity, but because the opposition team isn’t opposing the case or motion. Essentially, the opposition team has to prove “B and not A” to win, while government can win by proving “both A and B” or “A and not B”.
I expect all countercases to invoke no more fiat power than the government case itself. If I believe that a countercase requires significantly more fiat power to implement than government’s case, then I will disregard it as an illegal countercase. Obviously arguments can and should be made within the round to demonstrate why the countercase requires more/less fiat power.
Tight calls are an all-in commitment and must be announced at the beginning of LOC.
I believe that the tight call standard is a demonstrable “path to victory”. This standard is the only coherent one that is reasonably adjudicable and balances the structural advantages/disadvantages of both teams in a tight call. This belief is probably indefeasible and I will almost certainly still apply this standard even if alternative theory arguments are made in the round.
My standard for specific knowledge is probably quite high relative to most other judges. I think it’s important to be well informed about the world and I will reward debaters for it. However, I think that with very few exceptions, almost all “evidence”, statistics, and experimental results are probably spec. Facts that could have reasonably been clarified during Points of Clarification aren’t spec. Truly spec arguments are very rarely persuasive or part of a winning strategy anyways, so please avoid them.
I'm inclined to permit "status-quo" cases, given the plethora of other legal cases that exist that effectively transfer all burden to the opposition team. I will however be receptive to theory arguments about why this is good or bad for competition, and why defending the status quo but forcing the opposition to construct a counter-factual functionally makes a case tight.
If there are disputes about factual claims, I will look up the correct facts after the round and adjudicate the competing claims accordingly.
I will keep strict time and refuse to acknowledge arguments made beyond allotted speaking time. Speaking time is one of the most fundamental rules of this game and changing them even in a symmetric way affects strategic considerations significantly.
I will identify all new material from rebuttal speeches myself and refuse to take it into account when making my decision. New material in rebuttal speeches is against the rules of this debating format and I see no reason to passively permit it even if the other team doesn’t call it. I still highly encourage Points of Order because I might miss stuff and it helps to contextualize what exactly is/isn’t new. I will never punish attempting to make new arguments or calling Points of Order unless it is exceedingly obviously done in bad faith.
I will extensively cross-apply all arguments to their full logical conclusions and wherever they are applicable. This philosophy is best illustrated with examples:

If your arguments are internally contradictory but this is not explicitly identified by the opposing team, I will still identify this and defeat your own arguments
If there is an argument made in a member speech but isn't explicitly mentioned in the rebuttal speech, I will still take it into consideration and give it full credit as applied to the weighing mechanisms in the round
If your argument interacts with several opponent arguments, you need not explicitly “cross-apply” them for me to take your argument into account everywhere it is relevant
If you identify a weighing mechanism that prevails as the primary weighing mechanism in the round, I will faithfully apply it and potentially defeat your own arguments with it

If there are internally contradictory arguments or “knifes” within your case, I will only take into account the argument that structurally defeats the other. If this relationship doesn’t exist or cannot be determined, I will only consider the argument or claim that is less advantageous for your side.
There is a baseline threshold of coherence and persuasiveness that is necessary for me to consider an argument within a round. My standard for this is probably higher than most other judges. Mere assertions are insufficient to constitute an argument. Having very poor or unpersuasive warrants is no better than not having warrants at all. I will categorically refuse to consider any arguments that are logically unsound or based on factually untrue premises.
I will only weigh arguments myself in the absence of a reasonable weighing mechanism. If such a weighing mechanism exists, I will use it (enthusiastically or grudgingly) to decide the round. If there are competing weighing mechanisms, I will evaluate them like any other argument and assign an ordinality to their persuasiveness and importance and attempt to use all of them to evaluate arguments before resorting to weighing arguments myself.

How I Judge

It is both impossible and incoherent to be truly tabula rasa, and any judge who claims to be is lying to you and themselves. It is simply impossible to judge debate rounds without any prior beliefs or intuitions; it would be impossible to comparatively evaluate competing claims like “murder is morally good and is therefore obligatory” and “murder is morally wrong and not engaging in it is therefore obligatory”. Even the notion that formal logic is valid or that deductive reasoning allows us to make useful claims is an intuition that must presumably be disregarded by a truly tabula rasa judge... As a result, I’ve attempted to try to identify some of the intuitions and beliefs that I approach debate rounds with.

Things I have indefeasible beliefs about (probably don’t waste your time trying to contest these):

Speech times are fixed and non-negotiable
Rules: protected time, new arguments in reply speeches, etc.
One team wins and one team loses
How speaker points and ranks work according to the tournament rules; no low-point wins, etc. (I actually believe low point wins do exist, but will abide by tournament conventions)
Tight call burden (path to victory standard)
Specific knowledge standard (my own subjective belief about what is reasonable for a debater to know)
How logic and axiomatic principles work, how logical reasoning works, what makes a coherent syllogism, etc.
What makes an argument “good”; deductive arguments must be logically sound to be valid, abductive arguments are more compelling the simpler and more probable they are, etc.

Things I will enter the round with reasonably strong but very defeasible beliefs about (in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary, I will default to the following priors when judging the round):

The winner of the round should be the team that better fulfills their burden (prove the case/motion is on balance true for government and prove that the case/motion is on balance false for the opposition)
God does not exist
The world is not deterministic
The world is not solipsistic
Morality exists
Mill’s harm principle should be respected
Utilitarianism (I will evaluate the round using this standard if no other competing moral claims are made)
The following are categorically good all else being equal (though I’m agnostic about how they should trade off against each other):

Life (Probably only conscious/sentient life)                                   
Freedom
Maximizing preferences
Happiness/utility
Equal treatment
Risk aversion (only to the extent of having a concave risk function; no strong thoughts about exactly how risk averse to be)
Debate and discourse (it would be bizarre to engage in this activity if I didn’t believe this were true) 

Some of my Idiosyncrasies

To be clear, I will attempt to the best of my ability to disregard all of my personal beliefs when adjudicating debate rounds. However, I also recognize that it’s impossible to fully excise my cognitive biases. Take this not as a reassurance that I don’t have strong cognitive biases, but that I at least am aware that I have said biases. Play around them as much or as little as you want to.

I am sexist, racist and almost certainly also prejudiced against many other groups and identities. It would be profoundly intellectually dishonest to assert that I don’t have any implicit, cognitive biases against marginalized groups. I will obviously attempt my absolute best to not take such biases into account when making decisions and assigning speaker points and ranks.
I’m a very strong believer in utilitarianism. In the absence of an alternative, compellingly warranted moral philosophy, I will default to adjudicating the round using a utilitarian framework. I probably care more about maximizing preferences than utility, and I’m reasonably indifferent to the merits of act versus rule utilitarianism. This also probably means that I almost certainly have strong cognitive biases when I have to evaluate which moral framework to apply within a round and will likely prefer utilitarianism.
I’m an explicit/positive atheist. I will probably have some difficulty evaluating rounds from the perspective of a religious actor, and I probably have a below average knowledge and appreciation for theology.
I’m a first generation Chinese Canadian immigrant and I’ve only spent my college years in the United States. Thus I probably have a below average level of knowledge about American history, and institutions unique to the United States like constitutional law or domestic governance. I will probably not know anything about minor civil war battles or obscure constitutional law cases.
I don’t have a background in debate formats prevalent in American high schools like PF, LD or Policy. Therefore, I likely won’t understand any format specific jargon and won’t have any appreciation for arguments or styles common to these formats but not prevalent in American/Canadian/British Parliamentary. I don’t have any experience with spreading and will likely be unable to comprehend it. I also think that it is an ineffective and anticompetitive strategy, so please don’t do it.
I don’t assign any a priori value to the constitution, you’d better warrant why the constitution and respecting its principles is important for me to even consider such arguments.
There are many liberal principles such as free speech and democracy that I don’t consider to be particularly valuable. Don’t just assume that I believe these are a priori goods, actually warrant and impact their importance.
I’m a subjectivist, Bayesian probability theorist as opposed to an objectivist. This significantly informs my worldview and has quite a few interesting implications for how I evaluate debate. It means that I will probably require overwhelmingly persuasive analysis to believe that your conception about the state of the world is so probable as to be functionally certain, as opposed to simply being more likely. For example, if there are two mutually exclusive, competing conceptions about the likely state of the world and one is slightly more persuasive than the other, I will not believe the slightly more persuasive conception with 100% credence and the slightly less persuasive conception with 0% credence. Instead, I will assign prior probabilities to my belief in the likelihood of either state of the world that sum to 100% based on how persuasive I find the analysis within the round to be. This also means that when I evaluate impacts, I will consider the magnitude of the impact with respect to my priors about how likely that particular state of the world is (informed by the analysis within the round).
I study Sociology and International Relations, and I intend to attend medical school. I probably have more nuanced understanding of issues related to my areas of study, and a correspondingly higher standard of what I would consider spec.
I will never be offended if you scratch me, run nasty cases on me, etc. Please just do what you believe is in your competitive best interest.

Some Thoughts on Speaker Scores

The typical (not average!) APDA speech should be a 25. I not sure that the mean speaker score should be 25, but I believe the median speaker score should be.
Speaker scores are almost certainly not normally distributed, it’s silly to think of them as such and I won’t conform my speaker scores to try to fit an arbitrary distribution that almost never exists in reality
The only relevant determinant of speaker scores should be quality and persuasiveness of analysis. I think this is qualitatively different from “arguments” because rhetoric and speaking ability absolutely does and should factors into how persuasive your analysis is and therefore, what speaker scores you should receive.
The speaker scale is highly arbitrary and non-linear. At best, I will be able to identify qualitative characteristics of your speech(es) that I think corresponds to certain scores. At worse, I will simply determine speaks using a “know it when I see it” standard. It’s certainly less useful to think of speaker scores as a quantitative assessment of your debate ability as they are a qualitative judgment of your performance in each round.
As a result of the non-linearity of speaks, low point wins should exist (27/1 and 24.75/4 should probably beat 26/2 and 26/3). Such situations are exceedingly rare and it is almost certainly on balance bad to allow all judges to assign them though. I’ll probably raise speaks to accommodate such situations rather than lowering them.
I will not explicitly consider the enjoyability of the round and your speech(es) when I assign speaks, but it will almost certainly implicitly influence it.
In rounds with significant skill asymmetries, I will never penalize a team that plays safely and maximins. See the previous point about enjoyability though.
I value POIs very highly, and they are a criminally underused part of APDA. Do not expect good speaks if you don’t even attempt to engage the other team with POIs.

Things I really like and will probably reward with higher speaks:

High levels of strategic insight (very narrowly tailored opps, devastating countercases, understanding path dependencies, tactical use of speaking time, etc.)
Precise diction and powerful rhetoric
Very novel and fascinating cases (cases about subjects I rarely encounter in life/debate, multiple/infinite way opp-choice cases, etc.)
Bold, badass risk taking (successfully defending onerously high burdens, all-ins on a single argument, etc.)
Stylish gamesmanship (not using notes or pre-written cases, intentionally not speaking to time, invoking summary judgement, etc.)
Asking and answering POIs well, especially if done in a very deliberate way as part of a larger strategy

Some characteristics I think correspond to various speaker scores:

≤23 – Offensive. A speech that I thought was an actively negative and hurtful influence to debate and the world. Example might include offensive ad hominin attacks, actively advocating for profoundly anti-intellectual positions (vaccines cause autism, Holocaust didn’t happen, etc.), and bad-faith cheating or other anticompetitive behaviour. If you did something to warrant this score from me, I strongly encourage you to quit the activity of debate and never come back.
23.25 – Counterproductive. A speech that actively harmed your team’s advocacy and lowered your own team’s probability of winning.
23.5 – Awful. A thoroughly unenjoyable and worthless speech that does nothing to advance your team’s advocacy.
24 – Bad.
24.5 – Poor. Probably the threshold for my enjoyability. Please, please don’t make me listen to speeches worse than this.
25 – Mediocre. Should be the median APDA speech.
25.5 – Decent.
26 – Good. The hard upper bound for speeches that are very mechanically competent and argumentatively responsive, but are utterly lacking in strategic insight.
26.5 – Excellent. Very strong analysis and crisp execution. No notable flaws that significantly detract from the quality of the speech. Something truly enjoyable to listen to.
26.75 – Exemplary. Goes above and beyond a 26.5 speech in a substantial way. Brilliant strategic insight, remarkable argumentative content, etc. Know it when I see it.
≥27 – Perfect. What’s the point of trying to evaluate something so superlatively excellent on an arbitrary ordinal scale? A speech that manages to dramatically change my own outlook on an issue. A speech that systematically precludes any hope of victory for the other team, turning an otherwise even round to a blowout and a horribly losing position to a strongly winning one. The point at which I think any flaws the speech may have are utterly irrelevant to what it accomplishes; probably not a flawless speech, but still a perfect one.