1. I would rather hear the arguments than try to decipher a speed talker.

2. Just because you effectively shut down your opponent via interrupting rather than the strength of your arguments and logic, you will most likely lose the round.

3. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because there's a correlation does not mean you have "proved" anything!

3A. Additionally, you never "prove" anything. Your arguments are logically stronger or weaker.

4. Don't concede anything!!!!!! Ever!!!!! Always spar to win the point. Verbally spar, not physical sparring!

5. You can be considerate of your opponents and still engage in lively debate.

6. I may stop you after your speech to request clarification.

7. Please don't solicit verbal critiques. I will politely decline.

8. You may sit, stand, kneel, cross your legs, or whatever when you speak. Whatever makes you comfortable.

9. Please understand that I have nothing personal against you if you lose the round. I attempt to take notes and do my best every single time. However, I do not walk on water and I can't make the blind see.

Thanks!

Have competed in LD, PF, Policy, and Extemp; have coached LD, PF, Policy, and Parliamentary Debate. Will flow all debates. Hate spreading in all events.

LD: Stats and empirical data are fine but without strong philosophical backing, it will be hard for me to give a win. Prefer applications of philosophical framework that show some level of thought and intuition (I think a Value of Morality is fairly weak and needs an extremely strong VC to be successful).

PF & Parli: Nothing major, but again, no spreading. Require credible sources with actual data — opinion pieces are fine, but much weaker than empirical data. If you try to extrapolate data from a source like multiplying stats incorrectly, then quote them as part of the source, I will give you the loss automatically. It must be very clear what is your own mathematical extrapolation (which is more than likely incorrect), and what is actually part of the original source. If you do not have a piece of evidence cited in your case, you will also automatically receive a loss.

Policy: Do whatever you want.

Kale Fithian—Erie (PA) McDowell Policy Paradigm

Background: I competed in extemp in high school and speech/LD in college in the early to mid 1990s. I never competed in policy debate. I picked up judging after being trained about 20 years ago. I judge 10-15 rounds a year mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio. I occasionally judge circuit debate and have judged several times at NCFL Grand Nationals.

I would best be described as an experienced traditional judge with some exposure to circuit policy debate. Speed is not something that I am philosophically opposed to but I can probably only handle about 65-70% of the fastest spreading. Clear tags and direction on the flow will help. I will say clear if needed.

I flow on legal pads and don’t access technology during the round. It has to be on my flow for me to vote on it and not just in an email chain.

I am reasonably well versed on current events but do not have any especially specific knowledge of this topic area.

Round Procedure: I will time just in case there is a dispute but otherwise you are welcome to time yourselves. I won’t count any technology time such as flashing information against prep but it is your responsibility to let me know that you have stopped prepping.

Open cross-ex is fine with me but I will not require any questions to be answered during anyone’s prep time.

I am not overly concerned with formality of procedure but I will penalize heavily for clear unsportsmanlike or inappropriate behavior. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect and this should not be an issue.

I will disclose and do a brief reason for decision but I write most of my comments on the physical or computer ballot.

General Philosophy: My goal at the beginning of any round is to be as non-interventionist and tab rasa as possible. It will be the debaters’ job to identify the key issues of the round, argue them and guide me by providing voting issues. If there is a true breakdown of the round or lack of clash I will default to policymaker with an impact calculus as my preferred method of round evaluation.

Specific Arguments:

T—I have a fairly high threshold for T. I will tend to default to a reasonableness argument unless the Neg clearly wins the line by line.

FW—I am always open to either side framing the debate and setting up the importance of the arguments (as noted above in my tab rasa philosophy). I will not vote specifically on FW but if you can show the specific reason your arguments win under a FW I agree with you will most likely win the round if your points truly match the FW. If you can show what specifically you are missing out on if I accept your opponent’s framework that would go a long way.

CP—I am open to CP’s by the neg. If your CP will lead to a better net benefit than the Aff plan then I am going to potentially vote for it as part of the impact calc in the round. Likewise if the Aff plan has better net benefits then the Neg then I would be inclined to vote Aff at least on the plan portion. I am however not opposed to the Aff running T, harms, DA, etc… against a CP.

DA—I will consider both the Aff and Neg running DAs against a plan or counterplan to be fair arguments relating to the effectiveness of those cases. If the DAs outweigh the net benefits of either that can be a key voter in the round.

K—I am fine with Ks being run but it is up to the debater running it to make sure they explain the potential impact/consequences/reasons for the K to be accepted and to show why the topic or case is truly related to the K.

On Case—I am favorable to the Neg being able to attack the Aff case. I am more likely to vote on some sort of harms but will vote stock issues if it is clearly won in argumentation.

Performance Aff/Aff K—I am not very familiar and hold a high threshold here. If this is done it will need to be clearly explained as to why this is clearly better than running a traditional case.

Fiat—I will grant Aff fiat and any non-attacked plan gets full benefits as if it happened (granted harms etc.. could still be argued).

Lincoln Douglas Addendum:

I have been judging Lincoln Douglas for about 20 years and judge about 20-25 rounds each season mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. I have very limited exposure to any sort of circuit Lincoln Douglas but since I judge policy somewhat regularly I am still passingly familiar with the style. However I do not feel spreading or excessive speed should be common in Lincoln Douglas. Fast conversational pace should be the highest pace needed.

For all of the round procedures see above from the policy paradigm. For Lincoln Douglas I still try to be as Tab Rasa as possible and have the students determine the key voting issues in the round. However both my philosophy and judging experience leans heavily towards the traditional LD style. So in a close round I will default to who won the value and potentially criterion clash more heavily than practical applications, policy implications, or solvency. I do flow the main arguments and rebuttals for the debate but I am fine with grouping or big picture arguments and cross-application. However it must be clearly explained why an argument successfully counters multiple opposing views or why a cross-application is valid. I value the argumentation aspect of debate in LD more as I consider it to be a truly separate event from policy.

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

My Email for the Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

HS Debaters ALSO add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

In-Depth Judging Record: View this Speadsheet

-

TOC Note to the Debaters!

Congrats on qualifying to the 2024 TOC!! Enjoy the moment and the tournament! While the adversarial atmosphere of the tournament looms all weekend, never forget to cherish the moment of being able to compete at this tournament with all of your teammates, coaches and peers! I never got to experience this tournament as a debater, and you all worked hard to get to this spot!! Be proud and happy of yourself, your debate partner and your debate team! If you are a senior and this is your last debate tournament ever, definitely make sure to soak it all in. You all's novice year was online, and you all endured the pain of online debate for two years in your beginning years. If I judge your last debate ever, I definitely will say some concluding remarks for you seniors. Juniors and sophomores you'll have to wait down the line. Remember, have fun and compete hard this weekend! Good Luck to all competitors!! I am excited to judge the round!

-
Top Level:

**Before the start of every round: I want every person in the room to go around and state your name, pronouns and one fun fact about yourself. You all are way too stressed out before rounds and having this little icebreaker before the start of rounds promotes a safe, friendly space. It helps create a community in debate, and the teacher in me enjoys the idea of promoting community building.

I evaluate arguments on a Tech over Truth basis. A dropped argument is a true argument on the flow. However, the word "conceded" does not mean you get to skirt by with laziness on the flow.

The only time tech over truth will not matter is on Death Good (Ligotti style), Racism Good, Sexism Good, etc. Reading these arguments at your own expense will lead to an inevitable L and 25's immediately. As an educator, it is my responsibility to make debate a safe space for everyone.

High School Coaches I agree with - Jeremy Hammond, DB, Gabe Koo, Eric Forslund, Allie Chase, Tim Lewis, Peter Susko, Yao Yao Chen, Will Katz, and Maggie Berthiaume.

Schools I judge the most: Lexington (45), Berkeley Prep (43), GDS (40), GBN (25), Calvert Hall (21), New Trier/Bronx Science (19), MBA (16)

I am a big fan of the Washington Urban Debate League! Appreciate all of the work David Trigaux does down there.

Top 5 Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was favorite): Domestic Surveillance (HS 2016), Oceans (HS 2015), Fiscal Redistribution (HS 2024), Executive Authority (C 2019), Transportation Infrastructure (HS 2013)

Giving the final speeches (2NR/2AR) off the flow (ie paper) will boost speaker points!!!! Shows great ethos in round.

-

Fiscal Redistribution Topic Thoughts:

This Topic is Great! Pretty limiting on AFF ground and there is good NEG ground. There is a topic DA now, please go for it!! It is a valuable asset. Seriously please go for DA's, it makes sense.

1AC's that have heard the most - Degrowth FJG, FJG, Logisitcs, FJG w/ FTT

T - Taxes and Transfer: Lean AFF heavily, deficit spending AFFs are T

T - Social Security is OASDI Only: Lean NEG moderately, still believe healthcare AFFs can be topical

T - By: Lean NEG but barely. I think there is some truth to the AFF should only just be deficit spending, but excluding taxes as a whole is not ideal, especially the Social Security Area of the Topic.

Teams that dodge the question of "how is the plan funded" are cowards. If you specify a "wealth tax" or x-tax in your plan text and then say "we are normal means" OR "plan is fiscal redistribution", that is even more cowardly if you are not going to defend your plan.

-

The State of Flowing:
The state of flowing and line by line is very concerning. You all should be flowing the SPEECH, NOT the SPEECH DOC. The amount of times the 2AC has answered a skipped offcase or a couple of skipped cards on case because you just did not listen is concerning. Same with the other speeches in the debate where a team is answering something that was not said at all because "iT wAs iN tHe DoC"!! Same thing with people just claiming everyone is dropping everything.

No requesting "can you take out the cards that you did not read" before CX or speeches. If you ask, I'm going to run YOUR prep time and the other team can stall as long as they want because you decided not to flow. I don't care if they purposely run your time to ZERO, you didn't FLOW! You all have the document in front of you. That is a privilege debaters about 15 years ago did not have. If I can flow the speech without looking at the doc, you can to.

-

Consider the Following:

1) Implicate Arguments:

Judge Instruction is pretty non-existent in 90% of debates. As a math person, I really care about how things are concluded. What implicating your argument is pretty much equivalent to showing your work to me on a test. Telling me how to vote prevents major judge intervention from me. Clash, compare, articulate, explain arguments and tell me how they relate to you winning the debate round. Arguments without warrants depreciate in value compared to arguments with warrants are appreciated.

Nothing frustrates me more when teams say their arguments but do not tell me how to evaluate them. If I cannot figure out what I am supposed to do with your argument at the end, I am pretty much going to ignore it or not evaluate it. It is pretty consuming to try to sort out a wad of arguments that have no value to them. It is equivalent as to you telling me that this shape is a rectangle, and you cannot tell me why it is a rectangle without the proof/work. Do not bank on me trying to figure out what you are trying to tell me if you do not provide judge instruction, otherwise your arguments get bogged down.

If a team reads an argument that is considered "trolling", you have every right to troll back at them.

It feels really ironic that teams who have "framing contentions" do not do any framing at all. Both AFF and NEG are at fault for just reading cards and not "framing" anything. The spamming of Util Outweighs or Deontology First does nothing to help me evaluate the round.

2) Theory:

Please just stop reading pre-written blocks in these debates. Do Line-by-Line as you would normally do on any other flow.

Conditionality is probably good. I have voted both ways when it comes down to conditionality. Impact calculus and counter-interpretation debating does matter. New AFFs justify condo and perf con.

Hiding ASPEC/Other Theory arguments is Cowardly. If you do it and go for it because the other team dropped it, I will probably still vote for you; but it will end being a low point win. The 2N will take the hit the most for hiding it. You have to read ASPEC/other theory arguments on it's OWN flow to avoid this consequence. Do you want to be known as the ASPEC hider? If I don't catch it on my flow because you hid it, YOU do not get to complain about me missing it. If I know you hid it, I might end up not flowing it. Don't care.

3) Framework:

In these debates, both in K AFF and K rounds, are often quite frustrating to resolve at the end of the day. To win Framework on either the AFF or NEG, you need to do impact calculus! Most debates tend to stagnate and never expand on their impacts.

The other thing that annoys me that teams do not do is explaining their interpretation of debate. Both sides just breeze through this when this actually matters to me a lot as to why you resolve your own offense and why they link to your own offense. Debating and refuting each other's interpretations matters a lot and gets you a lot farther in the debate.

Hey Jake, is Fairness an impact? Yes. I think Fairness is an internal impact that can produce a plethora of external impacts. Hence, I tend to think Fairness is more of an internal link. I prefer clash style impacts over fairness impacts, but fairness can be a powerful impact set up for a lot of framework offense if executed correctly. However, I am not the person debating, and if you make frame Fairness as an external on the flow, I will treat it as an impact on the flow. It is your job to implicate it. Yes, I have voted on Fairness being an impact in the past. Walter Payton SW, LFS MR, Peninsula LL, and UC Lab ES are a few teams that I have voted on fairness for.

I prefer the AFF to have a counter-interpretation most of the time than just going for the impact turn strategy. Counter-interpretations help me get a perspective as to what I should think about debate and how I should come to the conclusion about debate. Most teams fail to provide also any UQ framing about debate.

TVAs are a great tool. A lot of NEG teams fail to understand the purpose of a TVA. A TVA does not need to solve the AFF. If the NEG can prove there is a TVA that can resolve a lot of offense from the AFF, the NEG is in a good spot. The AFF's best shot at beating TVAs is proving how silly sometimes these TVAs are. I am also shocked how AFF teams just let the NEG get away with blatantly untopical TVAs. There are so many times where I am just shocked that I end up voting for a TVA that just sounds very UNTOPICAL under the NEG's definitions.

Switch Side Debate is an under utilized argument that helps with most NEG teams. AFF teams can easily combat this by stating an AFF key warrant, which goes back to my thoughts about the counter-interpretation always being present in the 2AR.

Subjectivities being changed in debate is probably unfalsifiable

Limits DA is OP. I just find it the most persuasive reason to Fairness because in all honestly, debate would be broken if there is no limit.

Here are the following arguments I just find unpersuasive from both sides on Framework:

"They flipped NEG into a K AFF" - don't care, the 2N can lie all they want as to why they flipped neg. the 2N can say because my 2A is tired so we flipped NEG, and I am fine with it

"They flipped AFF with a K AFF, they are embracing competition" - don't care, same as above, the AFF can just lie and be like my 2N is tired so we flipped AFF

"The TVA does not Solve the AFF 100%" - no it does not have to, see the TVA section above

"You read 4+ offcase in the 1NC so you had ground" - 90% of the 1NC is hot garbage so it is not good ground

"We could only read T in the 1NC, so we have no ground" - have you tried at least reading the Cap K or the Heg/Cap Good DA?

"More People have quit debate because of K AFFs" - I do not think this is true, I think this is an unfalsifiable claim

"Perm Do their interpretation and our counter-interpretation" - You can't perm T, it is not an advocacy

4) Counterplans:

I am always down for a counterplan debate. I did find the NATO topic last year a bit annoying with the amount of process CPs that came out of it, so let's try to avoid it this year since there are decent non-process CPs on this topic. Counterplans should be both "textually and functionally" competitive is the immoveable standard that I will stake in counterplan debates.

Not only this forces better counterplans writing, but better permutation writing. Limited intrinsic perms really are go-to strategy against counterplans such as Consult NATO or the Lopez CP when they really have no intrinsic purpose to the topic. But a very good counterplan that destroys the intrinsic perm is very much a power move. I am easily persuaded that the "other issues" perm should be abolished since it limits out NEG ground a ton. Debating out words, phrases, and reasons behind it will go a long way. Should/Resolved debates are pretty meh, but they have stuck with me for a long time given my time debating against GBN and hearing Forslund's thoughts about counterplan competition theory.

Permutation Do Both seems lost in most process CP debates. I sometime think that you can just do both. That places the burden a lot of the NEG to really explain any inherent trade-off between doing the plan and the counterplan, especially with garbage internal net benefits.

Permutations are not advocacies and DO NOT have to be topical.

**Hot Take on Text-Only Counterplans: If the NEG team just reads a counterplan text in the 1NC and nothing else, the AFF can just say Perm Do Both and move on. Here's why: a) there is no claim of solvency established after the text. The Counterplan text explains what you are doing, not how it solves and b) you have not established the threshold of competition. Jimin Park and I had an interesting conversation about this.

5) Disadvantages:

Huge fan of disadvantages. However, this is a sliding scale. There are some DAs that are pretty heat, ie. Assurance DA on Alliances Topic, Econ DA on Health Insurance Topic, Russia Fill-In DA on Arms Sales topic. Then, there are some DAs that are absolute garbage, ie. Federalism DA on Education topic, DoD Trade-Off on the NATO topic.

Much prefer you focus on the link level of the DA. This is where a lot of DA debates are either won or lost. A lot of debaters really fail to explain or attack the link. I see the common tactic against DAs is just impact defense, when again link level debating helps. AFFs should link turn DAs when they have the opportunity. Straight turning stuff has become a lost art.

Politics DAs: Okay, I will admit these DAs are non-sensical. However, I love a good politics DA debate. It was my most common 2NR in high school. That being said, the politics DA is probably the hardest DA to both execute and answer. There are a ton of moving parts to it, that a lot of debaters end up getting lost in the sauce and just make this debate about who likes/hates the plan. Defenses of PC theory, UQ warrants, takes outs of the bill all have large implications on the DA. Winner's Win theory is a great debate to listen if the AFF decides to put offense against the DA. Rider DAs are bad (sorry Voss).

6) Critiques:

Framework for me dictates how I evaluate the round. Both teams should have a comprehensive interpretation of what debates should look like and how I should evaluate it. Both teams should also impact out why their model of debate is better than their opponents. This is where a lot of debates just fall flat. AFF team says fairness and clash. NEG team says that's capitalist/anti-black and that's it. Lack of impact calculus just frustrates me a lot. Why should I have to "weigh the plan" or "prefer representations first prior to weighing the plan". Bronx Science BD was the only team that really impacted out framework and provided a clear lane for judges to evaluate rounds.

I prefer if the critique had links about the plan/topic rather than representations of the AFF's impacts. That is a preference, not a mandate. A lot of good executions of the link debate utilize re-highlightings and implicating the reason for a link. AFF's can easily combat this by just defending their threats are real. I am pretty good for AFF teams that just that their impact is true OR their AFF is just a good idea.

Extinction is First is a default for me, unless there is another Utilitarian thought process that is presented and articulated well to me to think otherwise.

If you say the K is unconditional, and you kick the alt, you cheated!!!! If the NEG team does this, AFF call them out and it does not need to be much, but explain why what they did is bad! The K is not unconditional, the advocacy is. You kicking breaks the rules of uncondo. It is the same logic of a Process CP being uncondo, and then the team kicks the CP part and going for the internal net benefit. That is not how unconditionality works

7) Topicality:

I am probably not the best judge for topicality debates.

I will default to competing interpretations majority of the time.

What matters to me is counter-interpretation debating, and how you explain to me your view of the topic is better for debate. A lot debates end up messy for me to evaluate because there is no impacting out why limits outweighs ground or AFF ground better than NEG ground. I will always will try to figure out which topic is best for both the AFF and NEG.

Much prefer limits over ground, unless there is a clear linkage between the AFF's interpretation decking NEG ground.

8) Case Debating:

Love a good case debate. Both sides will profit well from a good case debate. Making smart internal link/solvency takes outs really provide the NEG a lot of leverage. If going for a counterplan, still having case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in for NEG since I can judge kick the CP and weigh the net benefit. What most high school debaters end up doing is just spamming impact defense. Much prefer internal link/solvency take outs.

Majority of the time, a lot of 1ACs are hyperinflated, illogical and run into a ton of problems. If you tell me you cannot find an illogical flaw in an internal link chain that says, "plan's biofuel research promotes ag research, ag research promotes GMOs, GMOs help solve food shortage in Ukraine, lack of food in Ukraine causes NATO intervention, NATO scares Russia, NATO-Russia war goes nuclear", I will be shocked.

9) Ethics Violations:

Clipping: a team misrepresents how much evidence they have read in a debate, such as improperly highlighting their evidence, “clipping cards” (the team says they read more than they actually did by clipping a card short of the indicated end), or “cross reading” (the team skips words or sentences in the middle of the text but indicates that they read all the highlighted words).

Any altering of the author's original text such as deleting/adding/re-arranging words/phrases/paragraphs is also deemed a fabrication of evidence. Proof of fraud is necessary.

Any ethics violation challenge, the other team must present evidence. Whoever wins the challenge gets the win and max speaker points. Whoever loses the challenge gets the lost and lowest speaker points possible (probably a 25).

John Masslon (updated 3/17/22)
Years judging: 16

(Some of this stuff is stolen from other philosophies. I have only done so when I agree 100%.)

*IMPORTANT* - Read below for my mask-specific rules.

About Me
I am not a full-time educator and/or debate coach. I haven't judged much this year because I refuse to judge virtual debates and the idiots in the DC area did not have many in-person tournaments this year. So don't assume I know topic-specific lingo.

Policy Debate

Cliff Notes for Preffing
- If you like straight up policy debates, I'm a good judge for you.
- If you like to go for a kritik in every 2NR, I should probably be in the middle of your pref list.
- Strike me if you are a performance team.

Ethical Issues:
It's unfortunate that we've come to a point where I need to put this at the top of my philosophy; however, teams that fully follow their ethical obligations are becoming all too rare. So here it is:
- If you say “mark the card at x" you actually have to mark the card at x either during the speech or immediately afterwords and then provide a marked copy of your evidence to your opponent. It's your job to do that with or without prompting from your opponents. Failure to do so could result in a finding of clipping.
- I follow the NDCA policy with respect to card clipping. I also follow the same procedure with respect to other ethics challenges. I will sua sponte intervene on obvious card clipping and evidence falsification. If the round is stopped sua sponte then the winning team will get the speaks they were going to get at that point in round.
- You are (almost certainly) representing your school while debating. This means that if I see any shenanigans akin to what happened after the CEDA quarterfinals several years ago there will be major consequences. Such consequences may include, but are not limited to, a loss, 0 speaker points, informing tab, informing your principal/superintendent/school board, contacting the police/district attorney, etc.

Rules
- I won't allow alternative use time.
- If you want to negotiate for another critic to adjudicate the round and that person is OK with it and it won't harm the tournament, I'm fine with that.
- I will intervene on the flow if a new argument is made in the 2AR because the negative doesn't have a chance to respond. Otherwise, it's your responsibility to tell me that an argument is new and why I should disregard such an argument.
- I won't give double wins or all 30 speaks because it is unfair to the rest of the tournament. If you make such an argument your speaker points will be lowered. I'm not opposed to double losses.
- I will disclose and give an oral critique if tournament rules don't prohibit the practice. I think this increases education.

General Philosophy:
I am open to a variety of arguments: case, DAs, CPs, T, and Ks. To me the genre of your argument is less important than the question of its implications: explain those well in a manner that answers your opponents main claims and you’ll be in good shape. I'll vote for stupid arguments, e.g., spark or timecube. If you can't beat those arguments then you deserve to lose. I lean heavily towards the tech end of the tech v. truth spectrum.

Below are a list of defaults. Debaters can convince me to change any of my argumentation defaults other than my position on performance debate. If you ask debaters that have debated in front of me frequently, they'll likely tell you that I am at heart a judge that loves a DA/CP/case debate but that I will vote for other arguments. I just personally won't enjoy the round as much. I'd strongly urge against doing a 180 on your strategy because of these defaults unless you are a performance team. You will lose more by being uncomfortable than you will gain by conforming to my defaults.

Topicality/Procedurals
I default to competing interpretations. Most T debates are won or lost on standards. Saying ground, fairness, brightline is not enough. You need to tell me why the ground you give to the aff and neg is best for debate, why your interpretation is fairer, and why a brightline is good for debate. Evidence helps here. If you are running ASPEC or something like that and you don't ask for clarification in cross-x you better explain to me why it advances debate to force such specification(s) in the plan text instead of having cross-x check abuse.

Theory:
I default to a specific abuse claim rather than just pure offense/defense. Theory arguments should be as specific as possible in regard to both the argument and its relation to the round and/or topic. Tell me why to reject the team and not the argument. You won't get far reading your camp theory block in front of me. You need to be explaining why, if I adopt your approach to debate, the activity will be better and if I adopt the other team's approach debate will be worse off.

Counterplans:
I am open to all theory on them. That being said, I lean towards the neg on conditionality (although this decreases as the number of conditional arguments increases), PICs, 50 states, and international actors. I lean towards the aff on consult. I do expect that if you are running a CP that it is written down, either in soft or hard form. Too many teams don't do enough to articulate what their net benefit to the CP is. If you are trying to perm a CP, you need to do more than just say "perm do both." You need to explain to me why your perm solves. I will not judge kick the CP unless the neg asks me to. However, the aff can win that I should not judge kick the CP. If the neg kicks the CP I am open to the aff arguing that presumption still flips because the neg ran a CP; however, I default to presumption staying with the neg.

Kritiks:
I frequently vote on kritiks, but the chance of me having read the author(s) is 0. Kritiks should clearly explain what they mean, how they apply specifically to the plan or round, and why I should vote for them. Role of the ballot arguments are fine, but I need to know how they relate to the round or debate. I will find it very difficult to vote for an argument at the end of the debate that I do not really understand. I am not willing to tell the aff that they lost to an argument which I cannot explain somewhat to them at the end of the debate. Perming a K is like perming a CP, you need to do some work on that end as an aff to win by ballot.

DA/Case:
DA flows are generally more persuasive when cards and warrants are extrapolated rather than giving me tagline extension or a card throw down. Storytelling will win or lose you the round here. Case debate has been heavily under-utilized, despite being a persuasive avenue for the neg. I do believe there is such thing as 0 risk of a DA or advantage.

Non-traditional debate/projects/performance:
In the past I voted for performance teams more often than I voted against them. However, I have decided that I will no longer vote for a performance team. The reason is simple. It is destroying debate. I don't want to be an accomplice to that destruction.

Speaking:
I don't care if you sit, stand, lay down, etc. during your speech. I mark down the last word spoken before time expires and that is all I will listen to. My clock is official (if I'm timing). If being prompted I don't listen to the prompts. I'm OK with speed but it needs to be clear. If you are not clear I will yell clear twice each speech. After that, I quit flowing. There is an exception, however, I will not yell clear if you are wearing a mask. Nor will I tell you I'm having trouble hearing you. Wear a mask at your own peril. I prefer that tags and cites be differentiated by your voice in some manner. If you are reading a list of standards, a definition, etc. use common sense and slow down a bit. CX is binding and I flow it if necessary. I like signposting. It makes my life easier. Making my life easier normally will make your life easier too.

Speaker Points:
- Have fun and enjoy yourself. Humor and good-natured fun will get you everywhere.
- I penalize heavily if you try to steal prep time.
- You will get more speaker points for giving a 30 second 2R if that is all that is necessary to win than wasting 4:30 of my life.
- Your speaks will suffer if your partner is dominating your CX.

Paperless:
- I highly prefer email chains or PADS sites unless it is somehow not feasible. Notwithstanding what is said below, if I think an email chain or PADS is feasible and you are flashing, prep won't end until both members of the other team have the speech doc up.
- Prep time is stopped after a) flash drive is on the way to your opponent; b) email has been sent; or c) speech is posted on your PADS site.
- I reserve the right to ask all speeches be flashed/emailed to me prior to the speech being given or at any time prior to making my decision.
- Technical failures will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Misc:
- People underutilize analytical arguments. Some of the best arguments in a debate round won't have a card to back them up. Tell me why an internal link doesn't make sense or why the opposing team's cards should be given little weight.
- I am a huge believer in a good overview or underview from both the 2AR and the 2NR. I view the job of this speech to explain to me exactly why I should sign my ballot for that side. Too many teams just spew out responses and don't tell me why they should win the round. Anytime you make me do more work there is a smaller chance of you winning.
- Sometimes a decision must be based on something said in a card when no other alternative is possible, but these situations are rare. This is when I call for cards. When I do so, I will not be pulling out warrants that were not talked about in round. As a related matter, I usually decide pretty quickly.

If you have any other questions just ask me through e-mail or in the halls. I will not be repeating this whole thing prior to a round but will answer specific questions.

Other Forms of Debate
Public Forum
If you are reading cards, you need to actually give me an author or date or I consider it an analytical argument. I think public forum is different from policy debate (that is why it was created). I won't put up with kritiks or spreading in Public Forum. I will just decide whether or not the resolution is true (a form of hypothesis testing). This doesn't mean that I am opposed to "unique" arguments. I have heard some pretty awesome pros and cons that think outside the box. I obviously think evidence is important in a public forum round but it is not the be all end all. Communication skills will play some role in speaker points but debate skills play a much bigger role for me.

Congress
I used to be a very active member of the National Association of Parliamentarians and have been hired to serve as parliamentarian for a wide variety of organizations. I hold my presiding officers to a very high standard when I am serving as parliamentarian. When evaluating speakers I consider the following (from most important to least important): Analysis, Clash, Impact, Evidence, Style, Rhetoric, Questions, Extempore, Attitude.

LD
I am fine with speed. I am open both to traditional LD debate and to more progressive forms of LD. Because of this, I know I will judge lots of "clash of worlds" debates. In these types of debates, you need to explain to me why your version of LD debate is good for the activity. At the end of the day, I'll ask myself which debater convinced me that in 10 years I'll want to be judging LD debates under their set of rules instead of the other debater's rules.

In more traditional LD debates, I find that one of two things normally happens. First, debaters don't realize after the NC that the whole debate is going to be decided on framework and so we should essentially drop the contention level debate and just head straight to the framework debate for the rebuttals. Second, debaters don't realize that because of the contention level debate one side has the ability to win no matter who wins the framework debate and therefore we need to be on the contention level debate instead of the framework debate. This normally is an easy issue spotting exercise but people keep failing at it. If you are trying to win under your opponent's framework, you need to make this explicit in this speech and explain why.

In more traditional LD debates, I greatly prefer to have all of the value and value criterion discussed together in the rebuttals because I flow them on one sheet. If you are going to go against this preference, I ask that you give be internal signposts so that I know that you have moved to/from the contention level debate to the value debate.

Parli
I believe there are are three types of resolutions in Parli, one that should be debated like policy, one that should be debated like LD, and one that should be debated like public forum. That is how I'll try to evaluate the round.

World Schools
I will adjudicate who I believe won the round and then assign points, not vice versa. It should be evident that I'm a very flow oriented judge. I believe that if you don't extend an argument in a speech and the other side points that out then you can't bring that argument back up later in the debate. Make sure you let me know where you want me to flow stuff if you are not going line by line. I understand that in world schools debate there is much more general clash, but that clash must still go somewhere on my flow. I'd advise splitting the opposition block in some manner. I won't be happy if the opposition reply is just repetition of the third opposition. I'm a huge fan of models and counter-models; however, don't run them unless you know how to do so. I'll be mad if you speak when standing for a POI if the other team can easily see you. There is no need to do that.

I can’t follow you/hear everything if you don't speak succinctly & enunciate. I prefer evidence for your stance & logical counters to your opponent’s views. I’m mostly conservative BUT I am not afraid to live outside the box!! Find an example of your substantive points and show me it is in use in the real world. I am not in need of 'off time roadmaps' I will listen to what you say.

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.