Inexperienced judge developing a familiarity with formal Speech and Debate format rules. Expect me to have heard of but be unfamiliar with, and thus slow to identify warrant, linkage, impact statements, etc. Clear signposting would be to your benefit! I am unfamiliar with formal speech and debate format, but I do listen to a lot of Oxford Style debate, in which the overall goal is to clarify, persuade, and educate. I will expect to be able to link your thesis to evidence and rationale.

I will follow a philosophy of tabula rasa to (attempt to) refrain from preferring my predispositions. Generally, I lean left politically but I dislike populism on both sides. I do not accept "common sense" arguments as being a given unless you can construct a sound framework justifying your position. What I value most about debate is the development of the cognitive ability to deconstruct an issue and address it from not only your predisposed conception, but from the opposing perspective(s). Respond to your opponent's argument! Do not expect to restate your own convictions and convince an audience by sheer volume or rhetorical performance.

Given this summary of judge types I consulted to write this paradigm, you can expect me to be inclined as a Hypothesis tester who may fall back on Appearance to adjudicate final determination of judgements if I was unable to discern the breaking points from a Stock Issues approach. In other words, I will do my best to determine arguments from formal speech and debate format philosophy, but will devolve to my personal philosophical inclinations when necessary.

I am here to learn as well and beg your patience with my performance as a judge. I will do my best to provide you with clear feedback about what I found convincing or lacking in your argumentation and refutation.

• update as of Sept 2023
• 3rd year coaching. Still feel slightly inexperienced as my primary job is a High School Science and Engineering Instructor. However, I am much more experienced than when I originally wrote this paradigm.
• All stated above is still accurate although I am more fluent in identifying formal speech and debate structure.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!

I will vote for the better debater

Theory>framework if reasonable

Absent framework debate i will default tangibility of impacts

Ask further questions if you want!

Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.