I'm an attorney who has been judging speech and debate events for over a decade. Although I was not involved in debate/speech as a student, I was involved in theater all the way through law school and have a long history of public speaking. I have a strong background in economics, am fairly well read on current issues, and I will pay close attention to the date and source of any material used.

In debate events, I prefer a well-reasoned, substantiated argument over pure speaking ability, and I will rely solely on the arguments and evidence offered in the round. I have occasionally awarded a low point win where I felt the strength of the argument overcame any lesser public speaking ability, particularly if the stronger speakers dropped arguments or failed to adequately support their contentions. I am comfortable with speed, as long as points/evidence are clearly enunciated, but please refrain from excessive jargon or shorthand - arguments must be fully articulated. I typically do not disclose my decisions at the end of the round, but will include reasons for my decision on my ballots along with notes for any potential areas of improvement and what I thought was done well.

In speech events, I am interested in diverse and intersectional viewpoints/performances. I typically focus first on the technical aspects of a performance - characterization, enunciation, projection, overall flow of the piece, etc. All performances being equal, I will award higher ranking to pieces that are more challenging, are thought-provoking, or offer a unique perspective. Again, I will include reasons for my decisions/rankings on ballots along with feedback on the performance and piece selected.

I did PF for four years at Shikellamy High School, where I placed 8th at NSDA nationals, and am currently a senior on the Columbia Debate Society.

I flow and am willing to follow *some* speed. I will listen and flow to all arguments so long as they are reasonably warranted and are not offensive/violent.

Like other judges, I expect teams that I judge to warrant, impact, and weigh. To be more precise, and to touch on my personal preferences, teams should develop and prove their arguments with evidence and logical explanation. Thus, if a team offers cards to impact their case and assert that their contention is true, but fails to provide robust reasoning, I consider that argument to be deficient. For example, "Scholar A says that Y happens" is deficient, but "Scholar A says that Y happens *because* of ..." is not deficient. Beyond offering explanations of why their case is true, the best teams will develop and extend their arguments throughout the entire round (all, or almost all, speeches). Finally, teams should make a habit of weighing arguments in the round. While attacking the veracity of opponents' claims is persuasive, it is also worthwhile to weigh arguments as if they are true to show why your arguments are more important (ex: Even if my opponents' second contention is true, our first contention still outweighs because ...). Doing so will make me happy (yay!) and also increase your chances of winning.

I hope the aforementioned preferences make sense, and I look forward to watching everyone debate :)

Overall - I will vote on anything I can understand - this includes speed/spreading. I won't tell you if I can't understand you. Speed at your own risk. I'm mostly non-interventionist, although if you're making grossly false statements about empirical facts, I reserve the right to not accept them. You can be aggressive, but at all times remain respectful to your opponents. Argumentation and logical reasoning are the foundations of debate. I don't care about your cards or meta-analysis unless you tell me why I should. Shake hands with your opponent, not with me.

LD Specific:

LD is a value debate. LD is a value debate. LD is a value debate. If upholding your value isn't the point of your case, I'm not going to vote for you. A value is not a "framework." Your contentions should link to your VC and your VC should be measuring your value. LD is not 1 person CX - don't talk to me about plans or solvency. LD is a value debate.

PFD:

Don't turn your presentation into policy-lite. Make arguments, don't just read evidence. I don't inherently care about any of your evidence unless you tell me why it matters.