I am currently a high school debater, and I've done exclusively LD for about 3 or so years.

LD:

I value the use of blocks, back when I did MS debate I loved blocks so much I made a 96 page long document full of them with my team. Esp. in MS Debate where you have LOTS of time to prepare for a topic, there's no excuse to not come prepared.

I think it's really dumb that most LD'ers at the MS Level don't... polarize? By that I mean you need to be strictly showing why it's moral/immoral, just/unjust. You need to prove that your case is more moral/just than your opponents, that's like LD 101.

Link your framework back to your case, don't forget the framework!

CX:

I have never competed in CX before, so I have a very vague understanding of it, I expect that you signpost to help me out, I won't understand any super complex specific policy-stuff. I'll likely vote off of a flow and who dropped/what points were stronger.

Main experience is in LD, with 4 years HS (UT & National Circuit) under my belt. I served as debate captain for my high school team and have experience with World Schools and PF, albeit the latter not from competing myself. All other events I have a basic level of knowledge about. Rule of thumb I'd suggest is that you consider me a lay judge for all events excluding LD.

For all events:

• Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. is an automatic loss or DQ, no exceptions.
• Going over time is Bad because It's There For A Reason. I will be timing you just to be sure
• Hydrate please
• Be courteous just in general please and thank you :)

For all debate events:

• Sitting or standing won't increase/decrease speaks
• Prep starts as soon as you start writing or typing. Please don't Literally Cheat
• On that note, if your opponent is using their prep time, you can also use that time to prep
• Speaks are earned, not given, but I hate speaker point ties for awards/breaks because I don't think it's an accurate reflection of a debater's skill. Speaks rubric can be found at the end of my paradigm

Specific paradigms for each respective event listed below. It's highly likely I'll be exclusively a debate judge (if not exclusively an LD judge) so preferences for speech won't be denoted. In fringe cases, just ask me prior to round start.

LD

General

• Clarity over speed always. Speaker points will be lost if I can't follow. Hand signals for if I can/can't understand you will be provided upon request. If you must talk anywhere over ~250 wpm, include me on the email chain
• Include voters in your last rebuttal. If none are specified by one/either party, default voters will be framework and solvency for the resolution. I'll also consider a morality voter if it's pertinent to the resolution (i.e. "ought" directly present)
• If you aren't telling me why you should win your round, you probably aren't winning your round. Weigh your impacts & general arguments pleeeeeeeease
• Signposting & off-time roadmaps are great. Please Use Them

Tech vs. Truth

• TL;DR: Tech > Truth unless you're going into the round with the intent of not debating

~~~ line break ~~~

• My general position on this is that Tech > Truth I GUESS but this has a ton of nuance to it though because debaters are debaters
• On tech: it's you (or the opponent's) job to point out bad internal links or just Cover The Basic Flow
• On truth: Arguments' truth value will always be considered, although prior knowledge about the topic won't influence my decision. Essentially my point with making this distinction is that intentionally running like 17 different half-baked arguments for the sole purpose of overwhelming the opponent is not LD. Maybe you'd feel right at home in policy because I see a lot of former policy debaters or very techy LD competitors try and do this so just know it's not working for me

Progressive

• Plans and counterplans good! Actually makes the debate measurable in a real-world sense too so I'd say it's arguably more applicable to LD than any other prog elements
• Framework > Theory/Phil ALWAYS. You aren't winning if you don't win the framework voter in some way
• Theory is very eh. T conceptually or otherwise doesn't need to be explained to me like I'm 5, mostly because you'll have a tough time trying to get me to vote for it regardless unless there's a clear violation of actual by-the-books NSDA rule by your opponent
• (Side note: NatCir has this extremely strange obsession with running really terrible T with the sole intention of trying to roll people who don't understand T. This probably doesn't help my current impression with theory in general so if you're running T you had better hope you have a good argument behind it lol)
• I would very much not recommend you run any kind of Ks in your cases for two reasons. One is I competed in the UT circuit so I'm obviously ultra-traditional (lol) but also I'm very much a Noob at specific Kritikal philosophy. Please just run normal cases else I will be a Sad Camper

Other events under construction!

• I plan on having dedicated Policy/PF/Speech paradigms here, but for now I don't think I have enough knowledge to actively write one for each event. Again, just assume that I'm a lay judge if I somehow end up in your event. Sorry :(

Speaks Rubric (for Debate kids)

• 30: Outstanding. Should go undefeated or get 1st or whatever is The Best for that specific tournament
• 29: Actively impressed me in round
• 28: Exceeded my expectations in some way
• 25-27: Good work!
• 24: Was disrespectful in some way or did something Pretty Bad to actively have me remove speaks
• < 23: No
• DQ or 0-1: Violated NSDA rule