My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

2004-2008: Policy debate with La Costa Canyon High School
2012-2016: Coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League

Tabla Rasa judge. It is your debate round, so you should do whatever you want. This does not mean that you do not need to justify why you’re running the arguments you run. Disad-counterplan strategies should still be able to defend and explain why a policy framework is best and K, T, or theory strategies should do the same.

On Kritiks, you can’t win without detailed explanations of your link story and precisely how the impact relates to or interacts with case advantages. On framework, I need a clear explanation of the impacts to your standards and why your interpretation makes for a better world of policy debate. You will need to invest a lot of time to convince me that a particular type of argument or impact has no relevance to the round, because I do believe these arguments are exclusionary and wrong.

On theory and topicality, you must again clearly articulate why your interpretation creates a better world for debate. What specific ground do you lose, why is their interpretation or violation unfair, and what specifically happens to education. Briefly mentioned independent voters will not fly; if you want to win here invest significant time. I like cheap shots, but only if they’re well explained and impacted.

Speed is fine as long as you’re clear -- I should be able to tell the difference between your tag and the evidence.

If you like speaker points, make good use out of your cross ex and don’t be rude.

Experience:

I did mostly policy in high school, and am doing policy in college, so I have the most experience with this form of debate. I did a little bit of LD in high school, so I am familiar with the basic concepts, but I am not intimately familiar with it.

Paradigm:

I am okay with speed, but nothing obscene. I'm okay with almost anything that could be run, just make sure you explain it clearly, with every link in the logic chain properly explained.

I love well-done impact calculus. Explaining why your arguments have more bearing on the round, or on the world, and how your opponents don't, is a very winning strategy in my book. Simply assuming the impacts of your arguments, or assuming I know those impacts, doesn't help me evaluate your arguments.

The final speeches should give me a few things to chew on. That is, don't just dump tons of words in my ears and hope I vote for you. Give me a few key, concise, good reasons why you've won.

Policy-Specific:

I like disadvantages, but be sure it actually links to the opponent's case. Additionally, explain the impact story clearly.

I'm a big fan of topicality. However, make the violation clear, and be sure you tell me clearly WHY it's bad that the case is non-topical.

I will vote for kritiks, but I'm not a huge fan of them. The link and perm are big issues for me with kritiks, so be sure to clearly tackle those.

For email chains, my email is: zanehayesemerson@gmail.com

Parkrose '26 | Parkrose GH | #UrbanDebateHeg

Email (as of right now): parkroseghdebate@gmail.com

Tech over truth, I will vote on almost anything. Give me judge instruction and I will listen, your last 2 rebuttals should write my RFD for me.

Run what you want, do it well, and have fun!

Key things to know / TLDR:

• I won’t evaluate things that occurred outside of the round, if it’s violent, you should report it to tab

• I default to judge kick, but that can change based on what you tell me to do

• I generally think condo is good, but will 100% vote on condo bad

• I do read evidence. Doing good evidence comparison will get you higher speaks and give you a better chance of winning the round

• Impact comparison is so important no matter what the debate is on. If you have better impact calc than the other team, I will reward you with high speaks + the ballot

• Spreading is fine as long as you're clear. If I don’t catch something and/or you don’t send out analytics, I won’t evaluate the argument

• I’ve mostly gone for policy arguments at this point in my career, but I’m getting more into K debate. I’ll vote on any argument as long as you explain it well and provide good impact comparison.

• Speaks start at 28.5

• Disclose! I will cap speaks and be open to disclosure theory if you don't have a disclosed wiki with at least cites of past 1AC's and previous 1NC shells read. Disclosure makes debate better and more educational, especially for students who come from smaller schools. If you are a novice, it’s acceptable. This is for the debaters with the resources and knowledge to disclose, but purposely don’t in order to gain a competitive advantage

I’m tabula rasa - blank slate. I’ll vote how you persuade me to vote factoring the things you persuade me to factor. I debated in HS and College and am now a practicing lawyer. The activity is so influential and positive for growth - whether research or public speaking or advocacy or competition - so many aspects of debate are huge values to help us be good citizens. And all are debatable in the round!

Good debates will weigh evidence and make distinctions between quality of evidence, likelihood of links and solvency, and magnitude of impacts and advantages. Counterplans and Kritiks also can shake up the formula, tell me how and why (or why not) and I’ll stand open to reason.

Good luck! Feel free to ask me questions about any specifics!

Background: I have been coaching debate and mock trial since 2006. For over 10 years I was a teacher and coach in the Chicago Debates League and have sent teams to a variety of TOC tournaments. Most of my debate coaching experience has been in Lincoln-Douglas with a growing emphasis in policy over the last several years.

Policy: I am not a fan of high speed spread debates and prefer moderation in speed over an ultra spread style delivery.Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going at a rate so fast that I cannot flow their arguments, then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Given this, I generally prefer to not be on the email chain as it is your job to communicate clearly and effectively in the round.

In the end, I prefer Policy rounds that come down to clear well supported argumentation, solid clash, impact calculus, stock issues, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework are great though I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case, i.e. generic negative arguments are valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. Always open for a great kritik, though prefer that you make clear how it is directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents.

In the end, my preferences are just that, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for them.

Policy Notes: 1) No open cross unless clearly agreed to by both parties before the round begins.

LD:

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

History: I have been coaching Speech and Debate in South Dakota and Oregon since 2015, with an emphasis on Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp. While Policy and Extemp were the events of my youth, LD and Public Forum is where I have spent most of the last few years.

Event Specific Paradigms

Policy: Moderate speed, I don't like high speed debates. I'd probably be considered more of a "flay" (flow + lay) judge. I'm down to hear counterplans, topicality, disadvantages. I'm only willing to vote on theory if the abuse is obvious. Generic arguments are fine but clear links are necessary. I'm not your K judge. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution.

Yet more Policy: Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going so fast and wild that I cannot flow their arguments then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework, ext. are all fine and I will enthusiastically vote on them, but I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case. As in generic negative arguments are completely valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. I fear that I am constitutionally disposed against generic Kritiks, unless they are narrowly interpreted and directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. All of this is simply preference, however, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for it.

LD: I love a values debate. Contentions and criterions are fantastic things to discuss and debate, but I feel that LD is at its best when it comes down to a clash of who upholds a value most successfully, and why that value should be the central consideration in the round. Speed is fine, but I do feel that LD should be a clash of ideas versus a contest of tactics and game theory.

Public Forum: Direct clash, clearly identified voters, and framework are the things that I initially look for in a round. Speed is fine, but clarity and rhetorical skill should be the primary skills demonstrated. Try to demonstrate how one case is better than the other, however the idea of better might be defined within the round. By the Final Focus speeches there should ideally be a couple of clear and distinct voting issues that provide some level of clarity on the round. If the round turns into a deep and meaningful framework discussion I am completely fine with it.

When evaluating rounds, I look for well-thought out and articulated arguments. I want clash in the rounds through clear attacks on opponent's arguments and authority. If you plan to run a kritik, please ensure that you understand the philosophy that you are presenting and that it is appropriate for the round. Simply reading cards is not sufficient, as I expect the debaters to be able to cogently discuss the arguments being made and be able to defend your positions.

I am open to any and all arguments, just be sure to be clear and articulate, especially if you are spreading (speaking quickly). For context, I debated policy for all four years of high school on the national circuit and ran/encountered every type of argument. I competed in parliamentary debate in college for all four years, as well as Moot Court (constitutional law) competitions throughout. Now, I am in law school focusing on Environmental/Renewable Energy Law, but again please feel free to run arguments of your choice.

The only thing I will say about Topicality is make sure it has all the components (definition, violation, standard, etc.). If you choose to go for this as a winning argument, don't expect to win just talking about it for two minutes, unless the opponent simply never addressed it throughout the entire debate. But that is also applicable to other arguments - narrow down what you are winning on and give it your full focus and tell me WHY I should vote for you. Looking forward to hearing all of you debate :)

Email for the chain: brian.simmonds@gmail.com

DEBATE BACKGROUND

I was active in debate from 1994 to 2005 (seven years as a debater, two years as a full-time college coach/judge, two years as an occasional judge of college debates). Most of that experience was in policy debate, but I also competed or coached/judged in most other events at least once, including high school LD, parliamentary (NPDA), worlds style (in Scotland), and most individual events.

Since that time, I have judged a few high school debates. I am an attorney.

What follows are my views on judging policy debates. I do not have strong views on theory or style issues in other debate formats other than that I will follow the rules of each event as written.

SPEED / CLARITY

I can still comprehend high-speed debates so long as they are *clear*. But I can't flow back-to-back analytics read at top speed, so please slow down for those -- this is most commonly an issue when a debater is reading theory blocks or 2AC blocks against off-case positions. And everything needs to be clear, cards included.

TOPIC BACKGROUND

I have judged very few debates on the 2023-2024 policy topic (economic inequality). I am generally aware of these policy issues, but I do not have an extensive professional in any of them.

JUDGING DEBATES

The following is adapted from judging philosophies I wrote in 2004-2005, but I suspect it is a fair approximation of how I will judge debates now.

General approach

I judge debates similarly to most other former debaters [of my era?]. I won’t vote against you just because your argument or style is not my favorite. The preferences and predispositions that fill the rest of this sheet may do more to mislead you than help you -- you are almost certainly better off doing what you do best than adapting to my sensibilities.

Theoretical Predispositions

If the framework of the debate is contested, I begin my evaluation of the debate by deciding what framework should be used to decide the debate; that is, what am I deciding? Which policy is better (i.e., what should the US federal government do)? Which team's rhetoric is better? Something else? Personally, I believe that policymaking is the most defensible framework available, but that is a legitimate issue to contest in the debate.

Topicality. I was a better than average judge for the negative on topicality.

Counterplans. I did not have any particularly strong opinions about counterplan theory, but to the extent I did, this is where I stood:

- Very unfair: non-textual alternatives, alternatives like “not affirmative”, international fiat, multiple conditional counterplans/alternatives;

- Unfair: states counterplans;

- Fair: one conditional/dispositional counterplan or critique alternative, federal domestic agent counterplan (e.g., courts);

- Very fair: Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

Critiques. Framework arguments are very important. Are you defending the status quo? (Probably not.) If not, then what are you defending? Vote negative doesn’t strike me as adequate. Is the debate about what the US federal government should do? What scholars should do? What citizens should do? About rhetorical artifacts? About ideology? About epistemology? And why should the debate be about what you want the debate to be about?

Argument Evaluation

In the later years of my debate judging, I became less enthusiastic about the value of quoted evidence -- and that is probably more true now, two decades later. Of course, evidence matters, but advancing arguments not included in the text of the evidence can be very persuasive to me as well. Spin matters. Reasons especially matter.

Background: I did speech and debate in high school focusing on LD, Extemp, and Congress so those are the forms I know best but have exposure to most of the forms. However, some of the categories are new since then and I am a new judge regardless, so please take into account that I have general experience but am not dialed in as a modern speech and debate judge at this point.

Paradigm:

My pronouns are he/they, I am non-binary and queer and I am predisposed towards arguments supporting equity, inclusion, and social justice. Arguments in favor of the status quo are fine, however, but need to support how it is good for the topic at hand not just that it is the default.

I believe that debates should be a constructive clash of opposing ideals or opposing plans towards a common ideal. Humans are natural story tellers and if you want to have people buy into your theory, you need to have a narrative structure that tells the story you want them to become deeply invested in. Support it with facts, absolutely, but a pile of facts with no narrative leaves open the interpretation of those facts to your opponents and the listener. A winning argument establishes their narrative as the field upon which the conflict happens.

Passion is important but so is respect. Engage your competition respectfully, do not demean or belittle.

I can follow along with speed but speed often dilutes the narrative power so be mindful of hitting home the points that are most important. Minimize spread. An unrefuted argument is not a winner if the argument is not well supported. Have key points, make sure I understand what they are, support them well, be respectful and you'll do well with me.

Include me on the evidence chain: myhre_joshua@salkeiz.k12.or.us

I have experience with several different kinds of debate, including policy, LD, public forum, and parli. I debated in policy throughout high school and some in college.

I am out of practice with flowing speed. There's not a lot of fast policy debate in my region. I appreciate slowing down and clear articulation on taglines as well as theory/framework arguments. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing if you don't oblige.

I am willing to listen to any form of argument - I have no particular bias against kritiks or any kind procedurals.

Topicality - I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting on topicality. If you want to go for T then it needs to be a substantial part of your 2NR. I prefer competing interpretations but will default to reasonability unless you clearly articulate your impacts.

If you want to make theory an argument, I'm willing to listen. I can be convinced that conditionality is either good or bad depending on what happens in the round.

I tend to think K's are okay, although most debaters can never really tell me what the alt actually does. If you want to make a framework argument, then go for it.

Good impact analysis/comparison is essential for me to make an good decision.

Extra speaker point for whoever can make the most clever Dune reference.

Debates are meant to be educational for all, clear to listeners, fair in competing content and skill, and charitable to the opposing side. As your judge, I want to see your side take seriously the responsibility to educate the room on the topic at hand, assuming little to no prior knowledge. Your judge approaches each topic with an open mind, so you should be filling my mind with exactly what you want me to add to my flow. Educating means speaking at a reasonable pace for understanding. Every person in the room should be able to follow your arguments clearly, the first time around (or, if applicable, through cross-examination). What this means is you are speaking slow enough, signposting often, stating links explicitly, and impacting your arguments. (Don't just tell me I should value safety, liberty, democracy, etc. Persuade why I should value it or why it matters.) Furthermore, if you sense your opponents are less experienced, knowledgeable, or prepared, leave them room to still engage in the debate and learn something. This means asking good questions and answering questions in a helpful manner. Finally, winning arguments take down the BEST argument from the opposing side, not the worst. Follow the philosophical principle of charity, assume best intent, be courteous, and practice empathy.

DON'T squirrel, run topicality unless absolutely necessary, fabricate evidence, talk over others, spread your case, drop arguments, use derogatory language, or engage in personal attacks.

DO prepare a strong case, speak well, practice mutual respect, read and think critically, and seek not only to win arguments but to understand other viewpoints.

[updated for OSAA 2024]

​

portland urban debate league

‎​

please add me to the email chain - avneetsid28 [at] gmail.com

i only flow your speech but glance at the doc when questions arise (clipping, misconstrued ev, bad cites)

‎​

i care for this activity and all those in it very deeply, and i only hope for the same from you.

you win when you are kind, creative, and clever & i truly believe you can achieve this when you try your best.

‎​

it is my job to adapt to you, and your job to write out my ballot exactly as you think it should be written.

‎​

(yes, please read your k in front of me.)

frameworks that rely on excluding the k, disengaging with theoretical debate, and severing from your advocacy make me sad.

t is never an rvi, things like "limits bad" are better arguments, so please make them.

do affs have the burden to be "reasonably" topical? probably. very low threshold for what this means.

teams that convince me to reject the res have arguably clashed with the topic enough to make me believe it's bad.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

I care a lot about disasters, fires, floods, and killer bees.

Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary National Championship at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman.

Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.

TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.

I like good theory debate, don't like bad theory debate (Duh). A good theory debate would involve teams providing their interpretation of the theoretical issue, warrants to justify that as the superior interpretation and indicts of their opponents interpretation. Bad theory debate almost always lack the third and frequently the first. I have little problem pulling the trigger on a theory debate as long as those implications are clearly identified and explained early in the debate.

I like well-applied evidence. I don't mind sifting through a bunch of cards to decide a debate, but I'd rather not. At that point I am forced to make my own evaluations to the quality or comparative value of evidence that you might not agree with. So help make those comparisons for me. Final rebuttals (or even earlier speeches) that isolate the warrants in their evidence and use that to make comparisons will save me a lot of trouble and you a lot of disappointment if I see things differently.

Style tends to be a matter of taste. I am encouraged about the willingness of teams to expand the stylistics of debate, but remain deeply committed to the core principle of rejoinder. In other words, the ability for critical debate. I welcome performative arguments, but I think you must provide a point for your opponents discourse to engage and respond or, absent that, accept your opponents' attempts to do so.I have some problems with being asked to simply affirm a performance as that seems at cross purposes with the nature of this activity. Other than that, BE NICE! Zero style points for being a jerk.

I'm a pretty flexible judge. Tell me what to do and I'll generally do it. I have a set of assumptions and criteria about how to evaluate a debate that I will fall back to absent instructions from the debaters. If you have any questions about that, just ask before we start. Most importantly, I like impact and issue comparisons in the final rebuttals. Statements like "Even if" or "Regardless of if they win" or "My impacts should always be preferred because" will go far to win my ballot. Too many debates are reduced to trying to stack a bunch of impacts on your side and hope it is enough to outweigh. Don't be that kind of debater, give me a big picture and weigh it out for me.