I did Public Forum debate in high school. However, that was four years ago, and I have not been involved in high school debate for a couple years. Thus, my paradigm may be a bit dated and my "jargon" skills a bit slow.

What I prefer to see in a round:

1. Keep the other team accountable by timing them yourselves. Try to have pre-flows before the round please.

2. Take it easy during crossfire, that being said I may occasionally transcribe a card name that I missed in speeches. Bring up CX concessions in speeches.

3. Please signpost and give me succinct roadmaps for every speech.

4. You don't have to go back to case during rebuttal if you are second speaking team.

5.When you make an extension it is okay to extend the idea behind the card, you don't always have to extend the argument by extending an author name

6. Do not extend through ink or go for dropped offense, I will not evaluate the argument.

7. Defense sticks in 1st summary, meaning that I do not expect defensive argument extensions in 1st summary. In both summaries new evidence can be brought up but new arguments cannot.

8 Please don't let GCX devolve into a shouting match

9. I am okay with a line by line summary or crystallization summary but I typically prefer a big picture final focus. WEIGH in summary and Final focus, make my job easier. If you don't weigh or make sound extensions I will have to evaluate arguments in my head and that forces me to intervene when I shouldn't have to.

I try not to intervene in a round but I will if:

1. I am forced to weigh arguments and do argument comparison for them.

2. Evidence is egregiously misconstrued.

Progressive PF

I am okay with Jargon, I would try to shy away from it in general.

I am okay with Plans and CP's

I do not like Kritiks in PF, but I will evaluate them if they are fleshed out well enough and extended. I will evaluate theory especially if any of the aforementioned progressive arguments comes up. I am more likely to pull the trigger on theory even if it's blippy against K's, CP's, and Plans.

If you are running any progressive arguments please walk me through the logic.

Speaker points:

be funny

Pretty generous with speaks typically give 27-30

If you're rude in any sense of the word you will get horrible speaks (20-26)

Novice judge, 1 year of experience in LD, PF, policy on the beginner level.

Not a fan of spreading.

Judge philosophies.wikispaces.com/Santos%2C+Alan

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.