Please ask.

I prefer to weigh real-world impacts over procedurals -- procedurals with no standards and voters will not earn my ballot.

T = fine, so long as it filters through the first comment.

H / I = I'm not super concerned about inherency. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I want to be able to evaluate your policy as an alternative to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

S = Obviously you need to prove you can solve to have a risk of impacts to your advantages. Likewise DAs need to explain links and internal links to have risk of happening.

Adv. / DAs = yes please.

Stock Issues

I am a solvency judge. I want you to tell me why you solve, and how, paint a picture of the harmony of your plan. If you are neg, I want to know why the aff solves, and why the status quo, or cp should be preferred. Regardless of the side you are on, you should be attacking each point made by the opposing team. DO NOT DROP ARGUMENTS.

I am a High School assistant debate coach, as well as a High School science teacher. My background in debate is that debated a few years in High School myself, so please do not waste your time with explaining the rules of debate to myself or your opponents. I believe that all topics are debatable, but ensure that you explain the relevance of your evidence and the connection to the argument. Although you may bring attention to topicality issues, this should not be the center of your argument. I favor sound arguments backed up with multiple sources of scientific evidence, so ensure that you provide clear tags / authors. I do not have a preference for style choices, I am open to all styles of debate. Presenting a thorough case is important, so I need to be able to understand you. Avoid extreme speed reading and burrowing your face into your computer screen. Although this is a competition, be careful with your word choice and "attacks" on your opponents. I do not favor taunting or personal attacks. Stick to the case and the debate topics.

I debated in high school for all four years and participated in state debate twice.

I do flow during all speeches and I will throw my flow away after the round is over.

I will not vote often on topicality unless the aff case is blatantly untopical or if the topicality isn't answered.

Counter-plans are fine they just need to meet all counter plan standards.

Stock issues in the round is my most important voting point.

Aff plan should prove solvency for their harms which leads to advantages and show that their plan is inherently better and comparatively advangeous to the status quo.

Affirmative has the burden of proof and needs to answer all negative arguments, no matter how wild they may be.

I recognize AFFs right to FIAT and don't want to hear arguments about how the plan won't be voted through. FIAT means the plan theroetically WILL pass as I sign the ballot.

Kritiks are generally bad for me. Unless its actually valid.

When it comes to forensics I will just judge according to the requirements of the event you are performing in.

I'm a flow judge. I'll judge based on what you give me to work with. I think that all arguments should be refuted on either side and that no argument should go unaddressed. All contestants should treat their opponents with respect and civility.

I don't believe Kritiks have a place in policy debate and I ignore them the majority of the time. Also, if you are running a Counterplan you must know how to use it.

Have a great debate and a great season! -Jake

I'm a head debate and forensics coach.

Debate: Steps for judging.

1. I look at stock issues first on the affirmative side, HIPS Case (Harms, Inherency, Plan text, Solvency)
2. Then look to prove your plan is Topical if the Negative brings a logical Topicality issue to the board.
3. I look to see if the Aff Case has more benefits(ADvantages) than DisAdvantages.
4. Most of my Reasons For Decisions (RFD) are based on the aff proving the problem is there, they can solve it without harm coming from the plan. Statistics will help here.
5. If the Negative disproves a stock issue, the topicality of the plan is unclear, or proves a disadvantage of the plan happening, the Negative wins.

Forensics:

Speech:

1. Organized logical thoughts and structured speeches.
2. Wants to communicate to their audience (Before, during, and after the performance)
3. Presents, Proves and Explains a Thesis (Opinion about life)

Acting / Interpretation:

1. Presents a teaser that develops an exposition
2. Transitions to an introduction that presents a theme (life lesson)
3. Gives strong supported emotional reactions to the text and situation through blocking, voice, expression, and transitions.
4. The text is presented as a mini-plot line with rising action (beginning), climax (middle), and resolution (end).

I have been judging for 4 seasons.

I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.

Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.

The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.

The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.

Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

I would say that I am a really open judge. I like to listen to stock issue arguments but will listen to any and all arguments as long as they make sense and you tell me why it has weight in the debate round. If you don't tell how I need to be judging then I'm probably not going to vote for you. Debate is a professional competition so you need to be respectful to the people that you are debating. The rule book is a tool you can use but if it is a small minor rule violation and does not affect the debate round a lot then don't bring it up because I won't really take it into consideration into my final decision. I know what debate is and have been in debate for 3 years now so you can use any terminology that you want. I love looking at the evidence you all bring up so if you have any extra copies I would love one. If you use speech drop I will more than likely join in just to see the evidence in there. If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please ask it before the round starts but I won't answer any of those questions until both teams are in the room just so that everyone knows the same information.

AJ Schartz!

I would say that I am a really open judge. I will listen to any and all arguments as long as they make sense and you tell me why it has weight in the debate round. If you don't tell how I need to be judging than I probably not going to vote for you. Debate is a professional competition so you need to be dressed and ready to go. You also need to be respectful to the people that you are debating. The rule book is a tool you can use to win, but if it is a small minor rule violation and does not affect the debate round a lot then don't bring it up because I will not vote for it. I know what debate is and have been in debate for 4 years now so you can use any terminology that you want. I love looking at the evidence you all bring up so if you have any extra copies I would love one. If you use speech drop I will more than likely join in just to see the evidence in there.

Brayden Stevenson!

Experienced debater. I value ability to summarize arguments in your own words. If you don't summarize a card or tell me in your own words how it links to a case/argument, then it doesn't exist. Always include a roadmap.