I am a very classic judge and I expect everyone to be respectful to each other ( No slurs, name-calling, or unnecessary gestures). I have experience in LD, Extemp, Poetry, and Congress.

LD and Congress: No spreading, follow the rules, I do not accept any form of CX I do not have experience in this field and to judge a CX argument in an LD round is unfair to all involved ( If it is a CX argument I will not flow it because I do not know how to properly implicate it but I also have a strong belief that CX and LD are different events for a reason and should not be intertwined with one another). I judge based on how well arguments were developed and if the resolution is fulfilled. I do believe that you can win based on one argument and that evidence is crucial in making those arguments. In Congress, I expect an active chamber and for people to be prepared. I also greatly appreciate giving the speech nobody wants to give. Know Robert's rules of order and parliamentary procedure so that the round moves efficiently.

Speech ( Extemp and Poetry): I expect the function and purpose to be met for both. Ensure the question is answered. I will always offer time signals and I judge based on performance and having the objectives met, along with clarity.

Note: I believe that Speech and Debate as a whole is meant for education and if you don't know everything that is completely fine as long as you are trying and you gain knowledge along with experience. With that being said don't impede others' education and make Speech and Debate an unenjoyable experience. Be kind to one another, you maybe competing but kindness grows any and everywhere.

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated for 4 years in high school and I was also involved in a lot of speech events (e.g. impromptu, poetry and oratory). While I was a teacher, I also served as a coach for middle school speech and debate for 2 years.

Things I appreciate:

(1) Solid, current evidence coupled with logical analysis. I find it frustrating when debaters try to squeeze massive impacts out of lukewarm evidence. I wish debaters would go for higher probability, lower magnitude impacts. It’s okay if you claim global war as an impact, I am just inclined to find it a steep hill to conquer.

(2) I really appreciate good manners in debate.

(3) If this is an online tournament, please turn your camera on and try to look as presentable as possible. I think it devalues the experience if we can't see each other. I promise I'll also turn my camera on, too!

Things I don't appreciate

(1) Protracted arguments about a studies' methodology or an author's credibility. If there is a critical issue with a key piece of evidence, please just make the issue clear in a speech or cross. I’ll be sure to call the evidence and do my best to read it thoroughly.

(2) Rudeness/shadiness: Please be professional and courteous to one another. Please promptly provide evidence to your opponents if requested and do not attempt to verbally contextualize evidence as you are handing it over.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that reading a paradigm ever gave me tactical insight as a debater, but I hope you find this useful. I love debate and I love that you are invested enough in the proactively to read paradigms. Good luck!

TFA 24: I am a traditional LD judge. I don't like speed, policy arguments, or theory debates. If you can't walk me through step by step, it may be best to strike me. I love a heavy value/criteria clash and good impacting out on case arguments.