Here are the answers to questions that you probably have.
Who are you?
Right into the existential questions, it seems...
I debated for 4 years in high school and then for 4 years in college (at Emory). I coached at the college level for about a year after that, but I've been on a competitive-circuit-hiatus for many (nearly 10) years, mostly working with various UDLs.
Why are you here?
Question I ask myself pretty regularly.
I'm here to enable others to participate in an activity that I find valuable. I think that activity should be inclusive, educational, and (to the extent this is possible) "fair".
Describe your judging paradigm.
I do my best not to impose my opinions on your debate. Make smart arguments; tell me what I'm voting for/against. Try to do that in very specific terms, using words that are familiar to people who haven't read Of Grammatology.
But, everyone has predispositions. What are yours?
I agree. Anyone who tells you that they can check their opinions at the door is lying. Here are some things that I generally believe to be true:
- There's value to life. Death is bad.
- Empiricism is a good way to understand the world.
- My ballot does nothing except decide who won the debate.
- Actual abuse is a much more compelling theory impact than potential abuse.
- The truth claims of the aff can't be thoroughly tested if the aff isn't topical.
- "Just read your K aff when you're neg" is rarely a good argument.
- Good evidence > Good analytic > Bad evidence > Bad analytic
- Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive.
All of these, obviously, are debatable. Teams have won (and will continue to win) that they are not true in front of me. However, these teams have fought (and will continue to fight) uphill battles to get there.
How do you feel about speed?
It's been a hot minute since I've been active on the national circuit at either the high school or college levels. I suspect that's made me less able to follow incredibly fast debates. My suggestion, therefore, is the same suggestion I'd give to any debater -- if there's something you absolutely need me to have on my flow and understand in order to vote for you, slow down a bit. Debate is a communication activity. I encourage you to communicate.
How do you feel about critical arguments?
These were never my cup of tea, as a debater. I impact turned the K vastly more than I went for it. As a consequence, I hypothesize that I am "better" at evaluating policy-style arguments. All that said, as a judge, I've grown to appreciate a well-executed critique. Unfortunately, I've also become a bit of a K-snob. A well-executed critique is great; a poorly executed critique is painful. You need to contextualize the criticism vis-a-vis your opponent's arguments. Please, don't assume that I understand the lingo; I have a vague concept of what "the liberal legal subject", "afro-pessimism", and "ressentiment" are, but not enough that I will understand how the concepts apply in the debate without you explaining them.
How do you feel about theory?
Do what you gotta do. If you can avoid it, probably go for substance. But, some stuff is legitimately bad for debate and the team doing it should stop. The best way for me to make that happen is to vote against them on theory.
What can I do to improve my speaker points?
Make smart arguments. Be funny. Be nice. Don't steal prep. Make paperless debate run efficiently. (I am old enough to have debated with paper, so I will always be thinking about how much time paperless debate seems to waste.)
Oh, and I love a good impact turn debate. De-dev, ice age, hegemony -- I'm so here for it. I will happily give double-30s to a team that goes 0-off and straight impact turns the aff.