Updated January 2025

The big update -- Be forewarned. If you lie to me about something that happens in the round (like claiming something is a new argument when it clearly isn't), I reserve the right to give you the loss, assign the lowest speaker points the tournament will let me give, and may hold a press conference in the student lounge to tell the world why I did it. Characterizations of what evidence says or doesn't say is understandable, but fabrications are not.

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been extensively involved in the NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 and written several topic papers (including the Latin America topic from 2013-2014), so I know the work that goes into crafting resolutions. If you advocate for/against the resolution somehow, I'll give you pretty wide latitude. Ignoring the resolution means the bar is pretty low for me to ignore you (though I have seen teams fail to navigate themselves over that bar).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes, I want to be in on any file sharing but I'm not going to refer to the document during a speech unless I feel like something happened that made me lose concentration or I'm snagging the odd cite. For speed, I don't flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I'll yell "clear" twice without repercussions; on the third "clear" in your speech, the pen goes down and I'm probably opening up eBay to shop for coins (and you're losing speaks) until you or your partner picks up on the cue. Getting things on my flow is your job, not mine. I will have no problem saying "you didn't say that in a way that was flowable."

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So, yeah, I understand things like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality pretty well, your K based on some random European dude who says adopting his method is the only way for life to have value is going to take some explaining.It is your job to put me in a position to explain to the other team why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. Framework or "role of the ballot" arguments that are not reasonably accessible to both teams are likely to get ignored. Example -- "use the ballot to affirm my identity" when the other team doesn't have that identity is probably getting tossed, but "use the ballot to combat structural violence being committed against a marginalized community" that you happen to be a part of and we'll be good to go.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I will worka little harder than youto make sense of the round. If neither side does work, I'm going to find the first thing I can embrace and sign the ballot.Asking me to read evidence, particularlyyour evidence, is a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

0. Do not spread in Public Forum -- if you want to spread, there's two other perfectly good debate events for you.

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.