Firstly in application to all debates please be respectful to your opponents as much as humanly possible, this especially applies to CX periods if you're not nice during these you will be jacked for it, debate should be fun for all. As it is exactly what I do I am more than okay with fast speeches and cases, but please make sure to signpost everything you are doing and make sure your opponent is okay with you speaking quickly.

LD: Luckily for you folks, LD is the debate I am the most versed in. Meaning I am more than capable of keeping up with shorthanded terms and difficult topics. As it is specific to LD I will often vote on the framing of values; show me why both cases should follow your framework. I flow very closely and will be able to see arguments if things aren't attacked. If you point it out and are right that almost always secures a win for the round. In your case, if the link chain is strong that's an early advantage. Overall, I will vote on frame, the spread of arguments, and more importantly tech over truth.

PF: Very important for PF kids, please tell me where cards are from and why they are credible. If they aren't explained and your opponents call that out it looks bad on the flow. In PF the use of questioning periods is so important. If you can use it to your advantage and tie back to the questions that's a likely vote for you. Make sure to flow arguments if you aren't I am and I will see when things aren't attacked/defended. If an opponent doesn't attack or defend something point it out and I will probably vote on that. Importantly I will vote a lot on tech over truth.

Experience - I am currently a high school debater and I have been doing policy debate since I was a sophomore and was a national qualifier my junior year. I also did LD and Public-Forum debates my freshman year. For all debates I can keep up with any speed of spreading, just make sure you are enunciating well.

LD - I don't have much experience with LD but please make sure that you have a good value and value criterion. Please make sure that you present a lot of evidence. I will always vote more with strong evidence than just analytics. Since I am so inexperienced with LD, please be sure to explain exactly what your arguments are; give me a good weighing mechanism, evidence, and impact calculus. Remember that a good debate has clash.

PF- Very similar to LD, I am not the most familiar with this type of debate so please be very clear with your arguments. Do not assume that I am familiar with the argument or the argument type so walk me as a judge through the argument.

CX- I prefer a pretty traditional debate. I would prefer if things like K were avoided on the NEG and I will not weigh K arguments and other theoretical/moral arguments as much as I will more evidence based arguments and CP and DA arguments specifically for that case or similar cases. That being said, if the AFF does not properly respond to any K or theory arguments brought up I will be counting that as the same as not responding to any other argument. All in all, I am open to seeing a number of different tactics employed in a round. Give me a weighing mechanism, evidence, and strong impact calculus.

I am open to seeing a number of different tactics employed in a round. Give me a weighing mechanism, evidence, and strong impact calculus.

This is my fourth year doing debate, i do LD but understand the other debates

if you have questions just ask before the round

if you are doing LD bring up the value and criterion its the unique part of the debate please don't ignore it ill cry.

my biggest thing that i'll vote you down for is being super rude there is a difference between debating and proving your point and just being insulting to your opponent the line is pretty clear other than that nothing super important don't be rude don't drop arguments if you have any other questions ask me before the round.

As a judge in speech and debate competitions, I recognize the significant responsibility that comes with this role. Judges play a crucial part in shaping the experiences of participants and determining the outcome of events. It is essential for me, as a judge, to establish a clear paradigm that reflects my values and priorities. In this essay, I will outline my personal paradigm as a speech and debate judge, detailing the principles and criteria that guide my evaluation of participants.

One of the central pillars of my judging paradigm is the emphasis on clarity and effective communication skills. I believe that clear and well-structured presentations are vital in ensuring that the audience can fully grasp the content of the speech or debate. I look for participants who articulate their ideas coherently, maintain proper organization, and engage the audience effectively. Elements such as eye contact, vocal variety, and non-verbal communication are crucial in this regard.

While effective communication is essential, it should be coupled with substantial content. I value presentations that are well-researched and grounded in facts and evidence. Participants who demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and provide comprehensive and accurate information will receive high marks in my assessments. I also encourage participants to cite credible sources and engage in meaningful research to enrich their arguments.

Civility and respect in discourse are fundamental to my paradigm as a judge. I expect participants to treat their opponents with respect and engage in a constructive and courteous manner. Healthy competition should not compromise the principles of respect and ethical behavior. Demonstrating sportsmanship and fairness is important to me, and I evaluate participants on their ability to engage in discourse without resorting to personal attacks or disrespectful language.

Integrity and ethical conduct are non-negotiable in my paradigm. I value honesty, both in the representation of evidence and in adherence to competition rules. Participants who demonstrate a commitment to ethical principles and maintain a high level of integrity in their presentations and interactions will receive favorable assessments. Ethical behavior not only ensures the fairness of the competition but also contributes to the overall educational experience.

I appreciate participants who display adaptability and strategic thinking. In debates, the ability to respond effectively to opponents' arguments and adapt to changing circumstances is a valuable skill. I look for participants who can adjust their strategies on the fly and anticipate counterarguments. In speeches, the ability to engage the audience through compelling narratives and persuasive techniques is highly regarded.

As a judge in speech and debate competitions, my paradigm reflects my commitment to fairness, clarity, educational value, respect, ethics, and adaptability. I believe that these principles not only guide my assessments but also contribute to the growth and development of participants. It is my responsibility to ensure that the competitions I judge are conducted with integrity and that participants are provided with valuable feedback and opportunities for personal and intellectual growth. My paradigm, as outlined in this essay, serves as the foundation upon which I base my assessments and decisions as a speech and debate judge.

Ask before round