Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, default to offense/defense

Experience: I debated for Neenah High School for four years, I currently debate in college for UMKC. I am two years removed from the high school circuit and have judged many high school and middle school rounds in that timeframe. Last year I was an assistant coach at Lee A Tolbert Community Academy.
I also did forensics, kudos to you if you can make a group discussion reference.

I will flow whatever I hear in a speech, I have no objections to spreading. That being said, if I cannot hear you, I cannot flow you. Slow down on tags/authors or key points if you want to ensure I get them.

I want to hear good substantive clash in a round - that can occur with any argument type. Analysis wins rounds. Make comparative claims.

To me, there are two clear cut strategies to win a round - go further in depth or have a wider breadth. Either of these are fine for me. To win a depth round you need to do lots of analysis. To win a breadth round you need to capitalize on your opponents concessions. Either way you should be explaining why you winning a certain argument is important to the round.

Flows interact more than most teams acknowledge. Cross applying an argument your opponent made on one flow to another is a very viable strategy.

I have no objections to any argument type, whether it be K's, performance, T, theory, etc. That being said, I'm not super familiar with a lot of wild K literature; explain your thesis and you should be fine.

Theory should have an interpretation, standards, and voters just like topicality. I enjoy a good topicality or theory debate and I think that these arguments are underutilized in debate today.



I aim to be as neutral as I can be going into a round. I think judge intervention is one of the worst things a debater can experience. This informs my philosophy towards me calling for cards at the end of a round. I will not call for cards unless there is a clear disagreement over the substance/text of a piece of evidence. I highly value good evidence, but if your evidence is better it should be articulated in round. I will not do work for you after the round.

However, in some rounds judge intervention is inevitable depending on how the debaters performed. Eliminate the risk of judge intervention by doing my work for me. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you and why that's preferable to voting for the other team.

I'm serious when I say I'm a tabs judge. If you win that I should evaluate a round a certain way I will do so.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have at any time! Good luck and have fun!