My experience:

Competed in policy and speech IEs for three years in high school (back in the hybrid paper/paperless debate days). Did IPDA debate and speech IEs for four years in college. Spent two years as an assistant coach for a 4A program that did policy and IEs, then one year as a minimally involved assistant for a 1A forensics program. Took over that 1A program as head coach for two years.

Currently, I coach at a 3A school, primarily investing in policy, Congress, and IEs, though I also have kids who dabble in LD and BQ.

2-Speaker Policy:

Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.

What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.

I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.

New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.

Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.

How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.

How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.

How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think I'm in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(

How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)

Finally, debate is an educational and professional activity (even if we're here because we think it's fun). When I'm deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer your arguments and analysis's impact on the round more than how pretty a speaker you are. However, kindness is a voting issue. If you do something that is extremely rude or offensive to another debater (it doesn't matter which team!) I cannot and will not reward you with a high rank or the win. I like to see debate rounds. I don't like to see bullying. This activity provides an AWESOME opportunity to create connections with other people. Do not let the heat of the moment take that away from you.

Howdy!

I'm currently a sophomore in College, with debate experience going back all the way to my Freshman year of High School. I went to state and took third in high school, so I would like to think I'm rather knowledgeable when it comes to debate.

TL/DR:I'm more of a Policymaker judge, but obviously I hold stock issues to a high level of importance. I really enjoy arguments that are tackled from a policymaker's perspective, but please don't ignore the importance of stock issues (or how to handle them, I suppose).

In terms of more specifics:

AFF Cases - You must defend an advocacy, and prove that action must be done. Otherwise, your plan does nothing. I strongly prefer policy cases, and I am not a fan of K AFFs, but if it's run well, I'll consider it like any other.

On-Case and Impacts - I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calc. is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency.

T - Topicality is a stock issue I'm not a huge fan of; I see it as a time suck in most cases. However, if you can convince me that the AFFs plan is irrefutably non-topical, and you support it well, that'll be real good. (AFF, I don't mind effect plans, so long as you explain the abuse story well).

CPs - CPs are also something I'm not a huge fan of, because they're often not run correctly. Make sure you have every part of it down, and make sure to convince me of the net benefits of the CP over the AFF. (basically, just run it right, and I'm fine with it!)

Ks / Theory - These are probably my least favorite, but I'll weigh it the same if you can convince me to accept the world of the alt, and not the squo.

DAs - Make sure you provide a link for your DA, otherwise it's not really a DA and more a generic argument. If you provide a link and a harm with it though, you're golden.

Delivery - I'm fine with any speed level you're comfortable with, but please make sure you're understandable while talking. (I'm fine with you talking really fast, so long as you're not tripping over your words)

Ultimately, provide good public speaking with clash, understand I tend to judge like a Policymaker, and we'll all have a good time!

I mostly base my decisions on good policy. I do mix in stock issues of they are applicable which is mostly topicality.

I prefer real-world arguments.

Good speech organization is always a positive foot forward.

Respect for each other is key. I do not like shouting matches or putting down of others.

Counterplans are acceptable if they are sound.

I am not a fan of Kritiks or Resolution Justification.

My preference on the pace of speech is the pace at which the common man can understand. In short, if you're gasping for breath, you're too fast.

I am looking forward to judging for this tournament! Take a deep breath and enjoy the moment.

Eye contact is important when presenting your piece. I like to see depth and your voice used as power to the testimony of your story.

I vote on a stock-issue paradigm, in which stock issues that carry through constructives will probably determine the ballot.

I strongly recommend off-time road maps and frequent summary/recap. These skills are so important in life, especially the ability to summarize someone else's perspective to check one's understanding.

I have warmed to off-case in the past year, so let 'em rip. It's unlikely for me to vote on off-case or style alone. Stocks still count significantly. Here's a twist: if stocks aren't your thing on neg, consider a well-conceived and well-executed K. I appreciate calculated risk-taking when the only alternative is mediocrity on the stock issues.

I have grown to love debate and love the young people who invest their Saturdays. I coach some (beloved!) students who are perpetually excited, behave badly, and need to learn ... moderation. Some of you might need to learn it also, so that you have it as an option instead of fighting/flighting/freezing throughout life. I am a judge who might try to help your coach teach moderation to you. Truculent, surly, adversarial behavior by debaters bums me out and can cost the ballot. Shouting hurts my ears.

Debate is worthy of the time we all spend. A problem with debate is that it tends to reward disagreement. In life we must find places of agreement, especially when we are competing and it is hard to agree. I award ballot credit for the team that seeks a place of agreement with an opponent, and expresses it at some point in the round. And by "agreement" I mean: sincere agreement followed by "and," not superficial agreement followed by "but."

Thanks everyone!