Background

I did some public forum in high school (went to the TOC etc), but mostly did debate in college. Competed in American Parliamentary Debate and was 3rd Team of the Year (w/ Perry Beckett) and 3rd Speaker of the Year, in addition to 3rd at Nationals, etc. Currently I coach PF and Parli (middle school through college).

Paradigm for Parli

Tech > truth, but parli. This means a few things -->

1. your arguments should be post-fiat unless your opponent does something egregiously unethical or abusive, in which case I will probably drop them anyway. do not read Ks, do not read frivolous theory.(something annoying that has happened in American debate recently is that most critical arguments about ethics, structural violence, etc have moved to being almost exclusively pre-fiat and about the "debate space." I like these arguments for the opposite reason, which is because they are arguments about the real world that exists outside the debate space. so if you are the sort of debater who prefers to read arguments which are more theoretical / deviate from the conventional parli "incentives + capacities" shtick then I will happily evaluate them like I would any other argument)
2. your arguments need to meet basic burdens in order to count as arguments
3. I vote on the Opp block (MO + LOR) and the PMR. LOC defense is sticky.
4. I don't care about style and it will not be reflected in my decision. Go as fast or as slow as you want. If your opponent CLEARs you, then slow down.
5. if your argument contradicts basic empirical facts (eg "x will happen because the US interest rate is going up" or "x will happen because Guyana does not have oil") it does not count as an argument

Paradigm for PF

I am thoroughly tech>truth, but with a substantially higher bar for what counts as an "argument" than most tech judges, and an extreme aversion to pre-fiat nonsense in a format that is supposed to be about the "real world" (whatever that means)

Some things that may affect your round:

• I flow cards and analytics as the same. truth is not intrinsic to its source ... a card is "true" because of empirical methodology coupled with rational analysis ... if a debater warrants why something will occur, I will, all else equal, prefer that warranting to an unwarranted card 100% of the time. the exception of this is probably statistical analysis about likely outcomes -- in which case you need to explain to me why this statistical analysis is a better reason to hold a belief than your opponent's analytics. the other exception to this is empirical facts -- I will probably intervene against things that proceed from untrue empirical premises ("Trump won the popular vote in 2020 therefore" "US inflation rate is going up therefore"), and do not see a good logical reason why a card justifies this intervention more than ... reality ...
• a conceded link does not automatically = a conceded terminal impact. I will evaluate the logical consequence of your link as it appears in the round
• debate is a game about logical interactions.so please weigh. if you do not do meaningful weighing, I feel quite justified intervening on strength of link, or voting Neg on a wash. if you do good weighing on a collapse -- even if it violates all the principles laid out in this paradigm --and your opponent does bad weighing on their collapse, I will probably vote for you unless I think you are doing something egregiously immoral
• go as fast or slow as you want. I can flow PF spreading without difficulty. if you are going at a speed more comparable to Policy or LD, the quality of my tracking will be lower, but I will likely still be able to follow the round (using speech docs as necessary). I will not intervene on style. that being said-- if your opponents literally cannot follow spreading, do not spread.It is their burden to make this obvious (say "clear" during a speech) and I will impose basic standards of reasonability here (i.e. if your opponents clear you at a speed which seems realistic for a technical PF round I will not punish you for continuing at that speed, but I will if you are quite literally spreading like a Policy kid)
• finally, I think the judge's job is to judge the round that occurs, not the round they wish occurred.that means if you want to have a tricky pre-fiat back and forth and collapse on an RVI then ... I will judge this, I will do my best to be tech>truth. the quality of my analysis will be lower than it would be in other rounds, and your speaks may disappoint you, but -- I will do my best to vote on the logic of the round.

what TO DO FOR GOOD SPEAKS

• read arguments that are well-warranted with analytics (in addition to evidence)
• read post-fiat philosophy that affirms or negates under a reasonable interpretation of the topic (I will give you a 30 if you do this properly)
• DO GOOD LINK-WEIGHING, DO GOOD WEIGHING, PLEASE LORD WEIGH
• play the game cleverly, within the constraints of the game (spamming extinction arguments or "progressive" tricks geared for different formats does not good strategy make)

what TO DO FOR BAD SPEAKS

• read frivolous theory
• read bastardized versions of critical / philosophical literature (aka the majority of "progressive" debate nowadays -- please be aware that I am familiar with a substantial chunk of the literature base via academia and will be extremely unhappy to hear poorly warranted, distorted versions appear in-round)
• fail to explain basic logical components of your arguments in cross