I competed in LD and PF in High school (2007-09) and then mostly parliamentary Debate 2010-14 in college. I then assistant coached /judged collegiate speech and debate from 2014-19. I've competed and judged all basic platform, limited prep, debate formats, congress, and interp events.
I am generally familiar with the more complex debate theories (topicality and framework, counterplan theory, kritiks, etc) but I am a bit rusty from not debating or judging for 5+ years now, so please give a quick /brief overview of any jargon or meta-debate that you introduce to the debate round.
In general I try to allow you to frame the structure of the debate. I usually will look first to the framework debate (how are we defining words, are you offering a criterion or value that you want me to judge the round on, is there an overall observation about the resolution that you want me to consider) and I expect both debaters to convince me to view the debate round through their proposed lens. This means often whoever wins the framework debate may win the overall debate (if both sides don't agree on the same general framework). That being said, if this is not a main clash within the debate round I will follow your lead to judge the round. In general, it is always going to be in your best interest to TELL ME how you want me to judge the round.
I tend to weigh argumentation much heavier than I do presentation skills and delivery. I am always willing to hand over a low-point-win if that is how the arguments played out.

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist you will lose my vote.

About me:

I was a policy debater in the 90s.

Congress:

I want to see good speeches with meaning, not just a lot of speeches. You'll win more points from me with one better defined speech than three poor speeches. Be respectful of your fellow senators.

CX:

I lean toward a tabula rasa mindset when it comes to CX. I want to see a good clean debate, tell me where you win and how. I look at the flow and see where the winning points are and the better policy option wins.

LD:

This style of debate should not be able cramming as much information as possible into your speech. Speak clearly.

LD is a values debate and should be won based on how you best uphold your value. State your value and value criterion clearly. Then explicitly link your arguments and criterions back to these.

The weight of decision goes to who best upholds their value and/or can incorporate their opponent's value into their own.

All Debaters:

Just because a weak argument has been dropped doesn't mean you'll win on this point. If you have 10 points and lose on 9 but your opponent drops one you'll still lose.

I am the time keeper and my time piece is right. I don't mind self timing but don't bother with "and time starts now" when you start talking I'll start my time. I give hand signals starting at 3 minutes.

I don't find tricks where you paint your opponent into a box they cannot debate in convincing. Everyone has prepared for the same topic, let's debate on that.

Finally, treat each other with respect.

Add me to the card exchange: DebateDrea@yahoo.com