Affiliation: Brookings HS, Brighton HS
Debate Experience: Four years of high school policy for Brookings HS in South Dakota, four years of college parliamentary for Boston University, two years coaching high school policy for New Mission HS in Massachusetts, one year coaching high school policy for Brookings HS, one year coaching high school policy for Brighton HS, four years coaching college parli for Brandeis University and Wellesley College.

I haven't judged much this year, but I'm somewhat familiar with the topic literature through cutting files for the BDL.

Judging Philosophy:
For the most part, this is up for you to determine. I try to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible, but there are a few things you can do to improve your odds:

1. Clash, warrant, and weigh.

2. Have a coherent story. Unless you set up a framework telling me otherwise, I'll default to weighing probability more than the average policy judge.

3. Tell me what to vote on and why. During your rebuttals, write the RFD for me. Be explicit: what do you have to do to win, and how have you achieved that? What did your opponents fail to do that should cost them the round?

4. As far as speed, you need to know your own limits. For me it's not an issue of speed but one of clarity; I don't care how fast you go as long as you're still actually saying words. The only time I've had trouble keeping up is when people speed through analytical blocks that pack 10 distinct arguments in a span of 15 seconds.

I'm fine with just about anything as long as it's clearly and persuasively explained. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. And have fun!

I debated in NPDA parliamentary for 4 years in college. I have been judging for the Boston Debate League for over a year now.

On performance, I award speaker points equally weighed on verbal and non-verbal presentation, and cross examinaition question quality and strategy. The exception to ths is speed--speed is fine.

On positions, I have thick calluses for theory and procedural arguments, both surrounding the role of the ballot and why they are voting issues.

Weigh impacts (probability, scope, magnitude, time-frame, etc.) in-round and be as articulate with every argument as is reasonable given the time allotted. My job as the objective arbiter is easy when each point is argued to conclusion.

I debated policy in high school in the early 2000s.  During that time, I debated on both my regional circuit and the national circuit.

Stylistic preferences (in order of preference)

1. Speed and Clarity - I'm usually okay with speed if you are clear.  I won't flow it if I can't understand it.  It will be very apparent to everyone if I am not flowing, so make sure that you look up occasionally to evaluate the situation.  In all my years of judging, I've never encountered anyone that was too fast, only people who are unclear.
2. Evidence vs. Analysis - Good evidence makes for a good debate round, but good analysis makes for a great debate round.  I want to hear true, substantive clash about the warrants of the evidence, not just low-level clash on the claims level.
3. Clear Signposting - If I can't easily figure out where to put your particular argument on the flow, then it might not appear on the flow.  In particular, I HATE it when teams just read off prepared blocks without some attempt at matching up where their arguments interact with their opponents' arguments.  I've been known to give really low speaks for teams who do this.  Be warned.

Argument Preferences (in order of favorability)

1. Kritiks - I love kritiks, because I think that they represent how the debate space provides challenges that allows high schoolers to think beyond the norm of what is offered in school.  As an educator, I really admire students who try to grapple with difficult academic content.  That being said, the bar for me to vote negative on a Kritik is really high.  A few specifics:
• No Links of Omission - I rarely vote for links of omission, unless the specific warrants for why the affirmative's omission is intrinsic to the argument.  Even so, the bar to prove that is really high.
• Intervention - There are a few instances where I will intervene if the prevailing moral philosophy behind the K is something I find offensive.  Ks predicated on racist/sexist ideology will usually be rejected without much explanation.
• Hanlon's Razor - A recent aphorism that basically says: "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance."  I like to assume the best about people, and that leaks into my judging.  You don't have to prove intentionality in your link analysis, necessarily, but it helps your case.
• Try to stay germane to the topic.  You COULD just run Cap Bad every round, but there so much more interesting stuff out there. 
2. Counterplans - Not much to say here... CPs are fun?  I do believe that CPs really kind of operate as opportunity-cost disadvantages, but if you offer differing theory, I am more than willing to entertain that.  
3. Disadvantages - I have just one thing to say here: Risk.  The shorter the linkage between plan action and terminal impact, the higher the risk.  And risk, for me, is an undervalued analysis in policy debate.  I hate the "try-or-die" argument, as it attempts to short-circuit risk analysis through intellectually dishonest analysis.
4. T and Theory - I don't really have fun listening to these.  I'll vote on them.  Making a T argument against a clearly topical case might be a good tactical decision, but I think it cheapens the game of debate.  Honestly, we're all here to win, but we're all here to receive an education.  I'd rather receive an educational experience by hearing good debate on the actual substantive parts of the topic than hear 5 minutes of ASPEC in the 2NR.  I don't really vote on potential abuse.

Important: I'm completely deaf in my left ear. This makes it hard to hear you, and it also makes it extra hard to distinguish background noises from voices. The clearer and louder team will often have a significant advantage debating in front of me. Speed: I don't mind speed, but I find it pretty rare that high schoolers are both clear and fast. Which would you prefer, saying 1000 things I can't understand, or saying 100 I can?

Overview: I am open to any compelling and well-articulated argument as to why the game should be played a certain way.

Novices: if you don't roadmap, I will flow straight down and then do my best / flip a coin at the end.

C-X: I don't flow it, but I will pay close attention for speaker-points purposes. Likewise, I think it can be binding if you articulate why it should be.

Style: In my youth I liked full K debates, in my old age I prefer policy. But it's not because I dislike Ks—I just enjoy a techy, hyper-specific policy round most of all. Keep in mind that my knowledge of K literature is well out-of-date with what is fashionable, and even if it weren't, I'm not going to do the work for you by filling arguments that I understand even though you are not explaining them correctly or at all.

The Meadows School '15

Northeastern University '19

Belmont Law '22

e-mail: pokerman1996@gmail.com ***PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL CHAIN***

*If you have any questions ask me before the round – it will not hurt your speaks in any way, it can only help*

About me – I debated for 4 years at The Meadows School in Las Vegas, NV -- I tended to be more traditional policy than K during my debate career

How to win in front of me:
— explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win

— you can convince me an argument is good in many ways —> cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, etc.

— explain net benefits to CPs and how the CP solves for some/all of the aff —> I won't do this for you via my flows

— make the link to Ks and DAs VERY clear – shady links need ever more analysis

— @AFFs – make sure you have offense on your advantages/solvency or you will lose 100% of the time

— @AFFs – make perms on CPs and Ks – tends to be a solid way to either garner offense or make the neg's positions non-competitive/not mutually exclusive

— go as fast as you want just be clear (slow down on tags) - if you're not/I can't understand you I will say "clear" (at that point slow down and enunciate better)

Specific arguments:
— DAs - please explain the link, people tend to read DAs with terrible link evidence and tend to not explain it. I'm not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args – you should be explaining the link in that time. TURNS CASE IS IMPORTANT. If the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and just spends like 2-3 minutes doing amazing explanation, its almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments.

— Politics - There is a lot of good ev. and literature out there given the political scene right now. However, PTX can easily be defeated by affirmative arguments about the illegitimacy of political capital or the low quality of negative evidence. Still, sometimes the negative wins by out-teching the aff.

— CPs - theory is really, really important because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. In particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirety of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. Explain how the CP solves the aff and the specific net benefit to the CP. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU. *If you read Lopez, you better win theory.*

— T - T is good, especially on this topic where a lot of affs are K are shady on how they link to the resolution. Your explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Why is your interp. of the topic better? Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - i think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. Since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument, don't waste your time.

—Ks - not the world's biggest fan of no alt Ks and ones with bad links, but am open to listening to them. I have been more policy than critical in my debate career; this means that I most likely will not pick up on K tricks that you might have used to win rounds in the past. Explanation is very important so I can understand your K. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. FW can be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out. Explain the impact to the K and how it o/w the aff's impact, and vice versa for the aff. Also, the Neg needs to explain what the world of the alternative looks like for me to be convinced that the alt is a good idea. ***I will NOT pick up on your K tricks because I am not a huge K debater; spend more time on the components of the K than on tricks***

— Theory - conditionality is good, dispo is better. That being said, it is still a good idea to read mutiple offcase positions as condo if you have more than one. Neg – provide a C/I and explain why that's the best way to frame debate. Aff - explain the in-round abuse and why your interp. is the best for debate. EXPLAIN TERMINAL IMPACTS TO CONDO AND WHY THAT HURTS DEBATE. I have been known to vote solely on 2ARs going for condo.

— Framework - YOU HAVE TO READ THIS AGAINST ALL K AFFS - I will vote on FW so treat this is a viable 2nr strat. In addition, I'm not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework; fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. K teams will ALWAYS have more game on the education front. @Neg: explain why your vision for the topic and debate is better, try to provide a topical version of the aff as an example, and talk about in-round abuse if you go for fairness/predictability (cross apply this to T as well).

— No plan aff's - again, not a huge fan. That being said, I'm still open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be. Make sure you explain the world of the aff and what it looks like.

Extras:
– There is nothing I love more than fun, challenging debates. BE FUNNY, but still be smart. I enjoy witty humor more than nonsense. Humor --> higher speaks (given you are still good at policy debate and aren't an extemp. debater in policy)

– The better your ethos the more speaker points you will receive; if you feel like you're winning the debate, then you probably are. That being said, your performance during speeches and cross-x will determine a lot of your speaks (in addition to solid args).