Argumentation and logic are far more important to me than gamesmanship. I realize that Debate has technique and rules and conventions, but the bill of sale was to teach students how to craft cohesive arguments and deliver them articulately. If your strategy is to exploit rules or score enough cheap points to win I will be unlikely to vote for you. If you spread, be sure you are good at it so that I can hear and understand you— my deep dark secret is that I am not great at hearing spreading, so if it's not coherent, I might miss your points. And I prefer to listen instead of reading your cards. If you run a K, it better be an extremely interesting one, or I will almost certainly vote it down.

I want to see real arguments being made in a passionate, logical, civil, and coherent manner. I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. You can be fierce and aggressive, but attacking your opponent personally is not aggressive debate. And being passionate doesn't mean shouting (necessarily; I have seen shouting that was effective, but it's a subtle skill!). Arguments before cards, please. If your "case" is just reading a bunch of cards at me, I won't be very impressed.

We aren't here to play games, IMO. I want to see you tackling these issues for reals and using your voice to make good debate.

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, bang on the table. Don't bang on the table. I prefer substantive arguments, presented in a linear fashion, strongly supported by logic, and and backed up by well-sourced facts.

I don't know every arcane rule and style of debating, but as an AP Gov teacher for 18 years, I know the topics and recognize proper argumentation and reasoned position-taking.

Thanks.

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater and current assistant coach of La Cueva High School in Albuquerque, NM. My last competitive experience was at the 2008 National Tournament in LD. LD is my absolute favorite style of debate and where I feel most at home, but I frequently find myself judging policy rounds. I've judged policy at both the 2017 and 2018 national tournaments and lots of local and regional Arizona and New Mexico tournaments.

I believe that debate is meant to be a persuasive activity, and I lean toward preferring a slower style. I will not understand much if you spread. I am pretty traditionalist and value/criteria are really important to how I weigh a round. I am not entirely fluent in policy style argumentation or lingo and I expect logic and reasoning in your case. I will count flashing against your prep time and I'm not a fan of things like flex prep, taking over your partner's CX answers, etc.

If I'm judging you in a Public Forum round, know that I am even more traditionalist in PF than the other two debates. I love PF for what it is and what it was meant to be. Don't use Policy lingo or spreading.

I never tolerate rude, sexist, or racist behavior in a round and speaker points will reflect that if I see it. Be eloquent and persuasive. I need to see clash in the debate. Please clearly signpost for me and sum it all up for me with clear voting issues in your final speech.

Please assign this judge to LD and BQ only.