I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

I am a very traditional judge who prefers good analysis and traditional case structure. I am ok with progressive ideas if they are well explained. Moderate speed is ok

Paradigm: This isn’t my first rodeo! Although I may not be a professional debater, I stay informed of today’s political issues. I’m most interested in how the status quo is affected by these issues. I appreciate a debater who can present both facts and real world applications. I also appreciate when two debaters can refute each other and there is some good clash! It also doesn’t hurt when you treat this as an actual congressional debate (mini congressmen and women).

Tabula Rasa, I believe that in creating a more fair and equitable debate round, putting my personal bias into how the round should be weighted would create more obstacles than are necessary, and creates a culture in debate wherein there is no evolution. That also means that emphasizing voters is critical. Present the reasons you won. If you have time, emphasize at the end of every speech what matters most thus far in the debate.

Speed is fine, just make sure to slow down a little on key components to help my flow. I appreciate road mapping. Feel free to time yourselves (I will keep time as well).

If during cross ex, an answer is being given when the time is up, I will allow a short answer past the time being up if both sides agree. I do not flow cross ex, although you must adhere to what you state in cross, in respect of fairness.

I have judged every form of debate and speech, and have been judging since 2005. My main events were Policy and dramatic interpretation, but tried most events.

Lincoln Douglas

I did LD my last two years of high school, and had a LOT of fun with it!

I am personally a fan of traditional LD, but that doesn't mean I'm not okay with a progressive case. Please don't expect me to understand every kritik, explain it to me. I want to understand your case as well as you do, so make sure you help me understand.

I am okay with spreading, just make sure to slow down on Contentions and Contention Points so I can flow with you. Possibly even slow down on important pieces of evidence if you think it will be important later.

I think that Value and Value Criterion is very important, and you need to make sure all your contentions connect back, but don't overdo the criterion debate. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, move on to why your case fits it better.

I think the last speech is the most important. This is where you tell your judge exactly why you won the round instead of your opponent. Don't waste that time. I don't flow cross-x so if you think something is important, bring it up in your speech.

I have done LD before, but do it as you want to do it! I have my preferences, but it's only to help me understand. If you can do it in a different way, that's not gonna be a problem. I'm not going to make you lose the round if you don't follow my entire paradigm. I'm going to make the decision on how you debate in round, and if you prove to me that you are the better debater, specifically that you have the better case.

This is one of my favorite resolutions, I studied this a lot hoping it would be one of my resolutions, and I'm excited to see what you guys come up with! Have fun!

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.