I debated for 4 years in high school and have judged 4-5 years as well. So I should be able to understand anything you want to do in the round.
I’ll be judging with a game maker paradigm meaning I value different arguements with different values. So for negative on case attacks generally are going to be way more effective. I generally don’t care for topicality or general disadvantages unless the topicality violation is pretty blatant or the general DA has a more specific link. I don’t prefer kritiks but they can be acceptable. Just know I would need extra convincing for you to win the round based of one.

Introductions

Hello, my name is Gage Giffin and I'm assistant coach for Sedgwick High School's Debate and Forensics Team. This is my second year coaching, but I debated in high school for three years and my partner and I were the 321A Policy Debate Champions for 2023.

I know the effort it takes to be here. I commend you all for the hard work and dedication to be here. That said, we are here above all to have fun. Have a good round and may the odds be ever in your favor...

Policy

Judging Style - I do not have one style really. I go back and forth between stock issues and policymaker. Your key to my vote is to explain your arguments and explain how I should vote. Run anything you want, but at the end of the day, explain it to me like I'm a toddler. Why do your arguments beat the opposition and why should I vote for you?

Speed - I would say I prefer a medium speed to listen to. However, I can manage with faster debates if that is what I'm given.

Evidence - If possible, please provide evidence to me. I enjoy reading along with the debate.

Kritik - I've never liked Ks. There's your warning if you run those. If you decide to, take the time to fully explain your K and what it means for this debate. Otherwise, I will not vote on it.

Topicality - Topicality is a big issue for me. You have to be within the limitations of your resolved statement. To the NEG though, that only goes so far. If you try to run a T on general words like "the", you better have a good explanation to back it up.

Congress

My style and beliefs for judging Congress are still forming as I get more experience with the category. Overall, keep up the clash and relevance. You should be engaging in the chamber, making your voice heard, and convincing me that you could be a real senator or representative for the United States. Don't just say anything though. Use critical questions and arguments instead of just wasting everyone's time with pointless or repeated arguments. There is a lot on the docket and too little time. So make every bit of time worth it!!

**If you have any questions please ask me!!! If your question isn't on here it is because no one's ever asked me before. BE THE FIRST!

Howdy!

I'm currently a junior in College, with debate experience going back all the way to my Freshman year of High School. I went to state and took third in high school, so I would like to think I'm rather knowledgeable when it comes to debate.

TL/DR:I'm more of a Policymaker judge, but obviously I hold stock issues to a high level of importance. I really enjoy arguments that are tackled from a policymaker's perspective, but please don't ignore the importance of stock issues (or how to handle them, I suppose).

In terms of more specifics:

AFF Cases - You must defend an advocacy, and prove that action must be done. Otherwise, your plan does nothing. I strongly prefer policy cases, and I am not a fan of K AFFs, but if it's run well, I'll consider it like any other.

On-Case and Impacts - I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calc. is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency.

T - Topicality is a stock issue I'm not a huge fan of; I see it as a time suck in most cases. However, if you can convince me that the AFFs plan is irrefutably non-topical, and you support it well, that'll be real good. (AFF, I don't mind effect plans, so long as you explain the abuse story well).

CPs - CPs are also something I'm not a huge fan of, because they're often not run correctly. Make sure you have every part of it down, and make sure to convince me of the net benefits of the CP over the AFF. (basically, just run it right, and I'm fine with it!)

Ks / Theory - These are probably my least favorite, but I'll weigh it the same if you can convince me to accept the world of the alt, and not the squo.

DAs - Make sure you provide a link for your DA, otherwise it's not really a DA and more a generic argument. If you provide a link and a harm with it though, you're golden.

Delivery - I'm fine with any speed level you're comfortable with, but please make sure you're understandable while talking. (I'm fine with you talking really fast, so long as you're not tripping over your words)

Ultimately, provide good public speaking with clash, understand I tend to judge like a Policymaker, and we'll all have a good time!

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.

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 (with the exception of the 1AC). Always include a roadmap.