I have been judging PF for several years. I look for logical reasoning, creative thinking and attention to detail when evaluating the participants.

I prefer the participants use reasonable references with regard to objective claims.

Cross can be a good time to show your strengths for both sides and I find that to be a deciding factor in many rounds.

Prep and teamwork become apparent as the round proceeds and I judge based on that as well.

Decorum, civility and respect count towards an essential requirement through out the round.

I competed in Public Forum all three years of my high school career.

Due to the nature of this type of debate, I am looking for simple and persuasive arguments formed in a cohesive manner. Keep in mind the following to better know my personal approach:

I highly encourage and value step by step progression in arguments, especially when competitors are attempting to discredit or overcome an opponent's arguments.

Please take control of the round without being dominating.

Understand I am not evaluating the most persuasive case by nature, rather how the argument is presented. The easiest side to convey and for the rational person to agree with will not be outcome determinative of my decision for the side that wins the round. Rather, I will be basing my decision on who presented the most effective argument.

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm: LD is traditionally a values debate, and should be done as so. One's case should successfully uphold their value and their criterion while having the best evidence to support it. LD is not solely focused on evidence, we must also analyze the values and morals.

Additionally, a round can be won or lost during cross-examination. Time should be used wisely, questions should be well thought out, and the exchange should be referenced in later speeches.

Competitors must speak clearly, and maintain professionalism.