4-year Public Forum Debater and 2-time National Qualifier. 4-year Original Orator and 3-time National Qualifier.

PF:

I default CBA

Flow judge who will be very sad if you don’t signpost :,(

I take prep for cards. I have final say for time!

If you tell me to look at a card, I will look at the card.

I value kindness and respect in every debate round. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. of any kind.

Have fun! Debate should be a friendly competition. I encourage making appropriate jokes and pop culture references that will make me laugh.

I have a policy background but have been judging PF since the move away from policy in SD.

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

Please time your own speeches and prep, your opponents' speeches and prep, and CF. I will do my best, but I am counting on y'all to be doing this as well.

I would prefer to the extent that is possible that cards only be called in the instance of genuine concern over unfairness/cheating. Should you need to call a card otherwise, once your opponent has prepared it for your viewing, your prep starts.

I debated public forum in high school, and I'm pretty traditional. Clash with your opponents, weigh arguments, don't spread, and clearly roadmap your speeches. Please be courteous to your fellow debaters.

In General:

I'm pretty laid back --- as long as you're not abusive or offensive, we should get along great! Just "do your best and have fun." :)

Cheat sheet:

General overview

Experience: I've judged TOC finals --------x---------------------------------------- Lay

Tech over truth: Tech ------------------------------------X-------------- Truth

Comfort with speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------------x-------------------------------- lay judge/parent judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory -----------------X------------------- not receptive to theory

Impact calculus that I use:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing -------------x---------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people --x--------------------------------------------- No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact ----------------x-------------------------------- Not a severe impact

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

Framework:

If no framework is brought up, then I will default to a basic CBA. I'm open to hearing different kinds of framework as long as they aren't abusive and place an undue burden on the opposing team. If the opposing team brings up a framework, make sure to address it! It makes it hard to not go with their framework if it isn't addressed. Just because one side brings forth a framework and the other side doesn't, does not necessarily mean I will automatically go with the framework presented as long as it is argued why I shouldn't go with it. Try not to make the debate about framework. I prefer clash rather than technical arguments about wording.

Flow:

I am a flow judge and as such, I will vote off of it. If you mention something once in rebuttal etc. and never bring it up again, it won't be brought through the round. Give me some good clash!

Evidence:

I will try to interject as a judge as little as possible in regards to evidence. I will try to base my decision on what occurs during the round and not my personal opinion as to whether a particular piece of evidence is factually correct or not. However, if the opposing side makes a point of the evidence not being factually correct, then it's fair game! I will try not to call for cards unless there is a fundamental dispute over evidence that would affect the outcome of the debate.

When you call for cards, I will not count the time your opponents use to find the cards against you. I will start the prep clock once you receive the evidence.

Speed:

I can handle some speed, but don't go too crazy. Once you start to get to a 7/10 or higher, you start to lose me. If I can't hear or understand what you are saying then it won't be placed on my flow. It should be noted that although it may not lose you the round, I tend to look unfavorably on those who speak fast for the purpose of tripping up their opponents. PF should be accessible to everyone.

Style:

As said before, I'm open to a lot of different styles of debate. If you run a K in PF, you have to run it right so it fits with the format of the debate. If you are split between running a K and not running it, I would choose not to run it. I am a bit reluctant to go with counterplans as that is not the intended style of PF debate. Whatever you do, just give me clear impacts and voters to vote on.

Speeches:

Rebuttal:

A line-by-line rebuttal with signposting is the way to my heart. You don't necessarily need to spend the time to bring through your case during the rebuttal as the rebuttal is more for offense (although doing so may help!). DO NOT claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it - it was a pet peeve of mine as a debater when people would do this and it's still one now that I'm a judge.

Summary & FF:

I am a voters judge so if you condense your summary and FF into clear voters, that makes it way easier for me to contextualize the round. Tell me what the main issues are and then go through each one to tell me why you won them. I do base my decision on the voters. You should also start to weigh your arguments at this stage.

Cross-Ex:

Please just stay respectful. I will tolerate those who assertively stand their ground, but I won't tolerate those who are overly aggressive. You can finish answering a question if the timer goes off.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Judge Background:

I debated for four years on the SD circuit. The events I competed in are: PF, DX, and Congress. I qualified to nationals three times (twice for PF and once for DX) and I competed in the SD state tournament all four years of high school. My senior year, I was (with my wonderful partner) the state AA champion in PF debate and we made it to national out rounds the same year! I additionally was one of the founding members of the Dakota Debate Institute (DDI).

I now attend Harvard University where I study government and sociology. I am the former Chair of the Harvard Political Union, the nation's oldest collegiate debate society, as well as a former Executive Board member of the Harvard Institute of Politics and Congressional intern.

Feel free to ask me questions!

Email: carterdemaray@college.harvard.edu

TL;DR, be clear be confident be kind

I competed in policy for 2 years and PF my last 2, I’d rather not see PF develop into a shortened CX

I am very traditionalist. Everything you say should be fairly easy to comprehend by a person off the street as this is an educational event. I won’t vote on generic or off-the-wall impacts unless dropped or explained really well. Probability>magnitude I'm not a huge fan of extinction impacts. I only vote FW if your opponent completely drops it. Don't be abusive, anything that goes against the educational and fair nature of the event is a good way to lose my vote. Make it clear where the card ends and the analysis starts.

Constructive: Don’t have something in your case as a time filler you plan on kicking later. Don’t push the pace and please show emotion while reading your case.

Cross: Be firm but don’t be rude, if your opponent asks for a follow up allow it but after 1 it’s your job to cut them off. This time is completely yours, I’ll never vote on it. Also, you need a good poker face, try to hide your reactions to your opponents.

Prep: Use it, even if your speech is ready you should look over your flows and see if there is anything you could add. You don’t need to save 1:30 of prep for the final focus.

Rebuttal: I’m still very policy-like here, blocks are more than OK but don’t act like it’s your first time reading them. Go down the flow in a consistent manner, I love it when teams cross-apply cases but make sure it makes sense when you do it. If something is dropped point it out, otherwise, I cannot vote on it.

Summary: Start crystallizing, and try to avoid new args, especially as 2nd speaker. Don’t spend all your time on clashed args it's okay to drop them if it's unclear, use your speech to point out areas you’re clearly winning. I vote really hard on weighing so please be clear with that.

Final Focus: Voters, Voters, Voters. It’s ok to drop at this point, go all-in on the args you’re winning. Tell the story of the round, act human, and show emotion.

I have some experience

I like to see clear links between contentions. I am fine with a quick pace to the debate, but that should not be a hindrance to your case or the clarity of your contentions; if your speed is a pitfall, that will be reflected in my speaker point allocation. Even if both sides have unclear contentions, I'm inclined to go with the side that has the best contentions. Your arguments should be as well thought out as possible. I am more likely to vote in favor of arguments that have been fleshed out as opposed to thrown in at the end of a round. If it doesn't get fully addressed in the round, I am likely not to flow it. I will not flow crossfires, and any important points brought up in them should be brought up in the next speech. I am ok with frameworks. No kritiks.

It's important to maintain a respectful tone throughout the debate. I won't tolerate racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc., and it will result in lower speaker points and a likely loss.

For prep time, I'll call 30-second increments and count reading/calling cards in your prep time. Please don't bring up new arguments or cards in the final focus - it's not fair to your opponent if they can't respond. If new arguments are proposed in the final focus, I am unlikely to weigh them in my vote and will also reduce your speaker points as I see fit.

I'm a former high school debater who competed in public forum for 4 yrs and foreign extemp for 3yrs. I'm a 2 time national qualifier, once for student congress and once in FX. In general for all events I can handle some speed but be reasonable. Everyone should be able to understand what is happening and that includes someone who's only seen a couple of speeches or debates. If an event isn't listed below then I've never judged that event or only a handful of times.

Extemp

Please first and foremost answer the question. Having given plenty of these speeches myself, I will know when you're trying to weave your way around the question. After that I look at quality in regards to both the information being presented(quality sources, quotes, etc) as well as how well that info is presented. Much prefer a 5min 30sec quality speech than a 6min 30sec speech of rambling.

Oratory

Competed for a year and a half in oratory so I understand what makes a speech good and bad. Every speech should be on a problem, cause, solution format especially for novice. Makes it easy for you and I to understand. Please oh please don't trauma dump when it doesn't relate in a major way to your speech. Enjoy well crafted jokes throughout a joke to keep me entertained so commit to the joke.

Public Forum

I will be keeping a strict flow and will keep a note of information. As far a dropped contentions or AT's go, tell me if the other side drops a point, otherwise I'm forced to include that evidence. Not afraid to call cards especially on heavily conflicted points. Misconstruing each other speeches will cost you heavily in speaker points and my trust in what you have to say after. Don't flow CX but if something from cross is mentioned in a speech I will include it. Best bet to gain my ballet is in final focus to give me voters. Otherwise I have to assume what points you value higher than others. I prefer voters not to be in the summary speech but if you do go that way ensure you have enough time to get to all points in each others case.

Lincoln Douglas

I know the bare bones of LD debate. Value framework above everything else. That doesn't mean the winner is the final chosen framework, but the person who best matches their contentions to the established framework. If neither side concedes to a framework, I will judge the round off of which framework I feel was argued with more mastery, and applied in a more effective technique towards the topic. If I feel both frameworks are truly tied in the debate, then I'll resort to contention level debate.

Student Congress

Quantity of speeches isn't everything. Try to give as many speeches as you can obviously if you're trying to win but ensure quality coincides with those speeches. Value of questions asked in relation to the topic is taken into account. Best case scenario is you talk about the questions in a way that adds to whatever side you're arguing.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

I am a three year Public Forum debater at Jefferson High School. So I am very familiar with PF debate. As a debater, in order to win me over please do the work for me. Weigh the impacts said in the round and make it clear through the flow why as a judge I should vote for you. Please keep the round respectful and be kind to your opponents.

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

tldr:

debate should be a place where everyone feels accepted and respected. whether you win or lose you should feel proud of yourself! this activity is hard and just participating in the first place is a real accomplishment.

experience:

-former pf debater from sf roosevelt in south dakota... now @ georgetown university in washington dc

-1x qualifier to nietoc (oo and drama)

-2x qualifier to gold pf toc (won the most toc bids in the state my junior year)

-3x qualifier to nats (worlds, pf, and oo)

key things:

-id say im a flow judge, tech over truth, and also i try to be tabula rasa as best as i can.

-collapse pls!

-SIGNPOST I BEG

-also pls extend (you don't need to extend authors bc i don't write them down but you should def extend warrants, links, impacts etc)

-i listen to cross so don't lie in speech abt what happened in cross

-defense is not sticky

-pre-reqs, short-circuits, and link-ins are gasssss

-EMPIRICS WIN, OFFENSE WINS, WEIGHING WINS

-debater math is terrible don't do it

evidence sharing:

id prefer y'all setting up email chains before round and sending docs before speeches. it really makes life easier for everyone and prevents stealing prep, delaying the tournament, etc. (also add me to the email chain.... im540@georgetown.edu )

speed:

please don't spread. i can handle a conventional speed but id prefer not to miss one of your arguments and then you end up losing because i thought you didn't say it. if you think you're going fast but not spreading then you're probably fine. if i say clear then you're going too fast. SLOW DOWN ON TAGS PLS

prog:

theory: im most familiar with disclosure theory but im not opposed to trigger warning theory or paraphrasing (any other types of theories will need to be extremely warranted). friv theory is annoying so pls don't run if u want good speaks. also have good cut cards pls.

kritiks: i have zero experience with ks so you will really have to dumb it down for me (i'm not against you running ks).

cps, plans, trix: no.

other:

if you have any questions feel free to email me at im540@georgetown.edu

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

TLDR for LD:In traditional debate I usually resolve the value debate first, then I look to see which side best maximizes that value or avoids harms associated with that value. Critical debates and theory args are cool with me, read what you want basically, I’ll vibe with it if it’s done well. See LD section for more.

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10 speed. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too crazy speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad/immoral args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and I’ll go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm open to critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessibility to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

General

I Debated PF for 3 years for Brookings High School

3rd at NSDA nats my senior year, 36th my junior year. 2-time nats qualifier, TOC qualifier, 2024 South Dakota PF State Champ.

Timing and Speed:

Time yourself. I will keep track during speeches but the round will be smoother if you time yourself.

PF Stuff

Tech>Truth

Argumentation>Speaking Style

- ie what you're saying matters more than how you say it

Second speaker needs to get back to defend their own case in rebuttal.

Don't bring up new argumentation in Second Summary pls

Don't Spread

-No one knows how to spread well in PF so don't do it

-you can still talk decently fast just make it audible

Don't be boring, use cross to your advantage. Strategy is something I love to see in action.

Warrant and Weigh your evidence

Progressive

I have a really high voting threshold when it comes to progressive arguments ( K's, Theory, whatever). If you choose to run theory with me as a judge, you better be sure that you will cross all your T's and dot your I's. Don't be abusive.

Extra stuff

Tell a story with whatever you are running. A clear narrative will help bridge the gap between lay and tech judges in any round.

I love clinchers at the end of speeches. A short statement that brings out the message of your argument. (Ex. Unequal Rules for Unequal Players Create's Unequal Outcomes). I'll give extra speaks if you do this because I think its that important.

The round isn't over until the final focus. I believe that the FF is the most important speech. No matter how good/bad the round has been for you, if you know what you are doing FF is where you get my vote. EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Warrants are what give you my vote over anything else. Weigh your evidence as well

Don't just say card names, explain why they matter.

If you want more info, just look at Emily Hua's paradigm. She was my partner and I agree with her on pretty much everything.

I was in debate all 4 years of high school, and have a pretty good grasp of how all formats go. I competed in Public Forum and Foreign Extemp, so those are the events I understand the best and will be able to follow along with the best on a flow. In IE's I expect to be entertained the entire speech with the speaker being able to keep my attention, while also giving me relevant information. In debate events, I can handle speed, but in PF don't get out of hand (the format should work for someone we found on the side of the road). I'm a 2 time national qualifier (StuCo, and FX), and an SD State Champion in FX.

Extemp:

Your speech is made to answer the question you chose. If I feel the question is unanswered or unclear, it will be held against you heavily. I think Extemp is a great event for creativity in speech writing where you can have a lot of fun in your seven minutes while still performing an informational topic. I always enjoy silly intros that relate to the topic, but PLEASE don't make a joke about a serious topic. If you use your note card (and the tournament allows it), it will only count against you if you make the notecard obvious.

Inform:

I expect my attention to be on you and your boards during the entire speech. There could be an explosion that happens in the room next door, and I should miss it because of how focused I am. On top of that, I want to learn something in your speech that I didn't know before (I won't hold it against you if I've seen it before). That means I like more unique topics with the best information possible.

Oratory:

I'm a strict judge of the problem, cause, and solution format of an oratory. By the time your intro is finished, I should know your topic, and what you will be talking about for the rest of the speech. While I love personal stories in Oratory, don't trauma dump for the whole speech. I expect relevant sources that tie into your topic if you have personal stories in your speech. Finally, keep me entertained, 10 minutes can be a long time with a mono-tone speaker.

Oral Interp:

I know next to nothing about Interp, but I did a little bit of acting in my life. I want to be able to follow along with the story you are conveying and have a fun time watching. The more I'm attached to your characters, the better.

Public Forum:

I will be keeping a strict flow and will keep a note of information. I will only mark contentions as being dropped if they were ACTUALLY dropped, and the opposing team reminds me that they were dropped. Don't misconstrue evidence, I will call cards if they seem sketchy. Also, don't misconstrue your opponents' speech, I've seen too many rounds get thrown in the mud because nobody knew what they were debating at the end of the round. I will not write information down during CX, but if you mention it in the following speech, I will add it to the flow. Finally, I want to be told what the main voting points are in the final speeches, and why your team should win. Act like I'm some guy who doesn't know how to tie his shoes, and make it obvious.

Lincoln Douglas:

I know the bare bones of LD debate, and may the great Kerry Konda have mercy on your soul if I'm your judge in LD. I will keep up with the flow, and focus a lot on the framework debate. That doesn't mean the winner is the final chosen framework, but the person who best matches their contentions to the established framework. If neither side concedes to a framework, I will judge the round off of which framework I feel was argued with more mastery, and applies the most towards the topic. If I feel both frameworks are truly tied in the debate, then I will judge even more heavily on the contention level.

Policy Debate:

I have never seen a policy round in my life, and I'm curious how I got here if you're reading this message. I will also be sad if I have to change this.

Student Congress:

I will rank competitors on the quality and quantity of speeches. You should be able to give multiple good speeches in a session (throughout the session). I will take note of competitors' abilities to ask/answer questions as well. To demonstrate true mastery of this event, I expect any speech after the initial speeches on both sides to address previously stated information. If you are trying to get a ticket to Nationals in StuCo, you will have to be able to supply information on the previous speeches.

Currently, I am the novice public forum coach at Edina High School. I graduated from Aberdeen Central in 2024 and participated in PF for four years. I also participated in informative speaking and big question debate.

Regardless of the format I am judging, I am very much a flow judge. I can handle some speed, but don’t go so fast that I’m not able to get your important arguments onto my flow. I won’t vote on anything that I am not directly told in round, so if your opponents dropped something, make sure you say so! Additionally, even if I can tell your opponent’s link chain is flawed, I won’t take that into consideration unless it is brought up in the round. Feel free to give off the clock roadmaps, but keep it short and sweet. When time is up, I’ll allow you to finish your sentence or finish answering a question, but please respect the time limit.

Always be sure that you’re being respectful of your opponent and your judge. I know debate can get a bit intense, especially in cross, but always make sure you’re being assertive rather than aggressive.

TL:DR

Basically a traditional flow judge who can follow some speed, votes off impacts, and dislikes misconstruing evidence. I think your job as the debater is to make my job as the judge as easy as possible :)

Public Forum Paradigm:

Lay judge. Convince me of things.

LD Paradigm:

I don't know anything so go super slow when explaining philosophy.

2 years public forum, 2 years extemporaneous, 2-year state finalist in public forum. I am a national qualifier in public forum in 2024. Known for winning against the 2024 national debate tournament 3rd place winners :)

How I vote

I vote off of flow. Defense is not sticky: extend it through the entire round if you can. The summary speaker should collapse contentions or focus on the most important arguments if possible. Please signpost your rebuttal, summary, and final focus!
Non topical debate is not something I have ever voted on.

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make-up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed, however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 7ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.