My experience:

-Competitor @ Remington HS 2013-2016 (Policy, primarily speech focused IEs)

-Competitor @ Sterling College 2016-2020 (IPDA, platform speeches + extemp)

-Coach @ Ashland HS (a.c. 2021, h.c. 2022-23; IEs only, but judged a few policy rounds here and there)

-Coach @ Nickerson HS (a.c 2018-2020, h.c 2023- present; Policy, Congress, all IEs, some LD and BQ)

2-Speaker Policy:

Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.

What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.

I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.

New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.

Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.

How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.

How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.

How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think I'm in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(

How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)

Finally, debate is an educational and professional activity (even if we're here because we think it's fun). When I'm deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer your arguments and analysis's impact on the round more than how pretty a speaker you are. However, kindness is a voting issue. If you do something that is extremely rude or offensive to another debater (it doesn't matter which team!) I cannot and will not reward you with a high rank or the win. I like to see debate rounds. I don't like to see bullying. This activity provides an AWESOME opportunity to create connections with other people. Do not let the heat of the moment take that away from you.