Debated PF for Appleton East High School all 4 years of high school. I made it to state each year and I qualified for Nationals 3 years in PF and USX.
This is my first year judging and I’ve been judging mostly LD so far.
I’m a bigger fan of traditional debate just because that’s what I’ve mostly dealt with in my experience with debate. I don’t really mind most arguments that are outside of traditional debate. If you do end up running nontraditional arguments, I’ll try to evaluate them to the best of my ability. I have very limited experience with presumption and policy args so if you want me to include them on the flow, your arguments will have to be very thoroughly explained. I have limited experience with kritikal arguments too, but I’m better at evaluating K arguments than presumption and policy args. T is fine as long as it is argued well. I don’t like debates on framers’ intent that much though. If you run anything squirrel, I’ll most likely find it entertaining but don’t depend on it for a ballot. It is important to note that most of the time I value impacts more than FW fulfillment.
Speed isn’t very fun for me but I can tolerate it. It just depends how quickly you’re going I guess. Just speak clearly and loudly please. If you speak too quickly, I’ll tell you to slow down. If you don’t speak clearly, I’ll tell you to speak clearer. If you don’t adapt to this paradigm, too bad for your speaker points. In the end, I don’t like adapting to speed. And please remember to signpost. While we’re at it, keep in mind that anything that is not politically correct is essentially offensive and you will lose points is you have arguments that are not PC. I don’t really like when debaters argue the broad idea of an argument, rather than the links, evidence itself, etc. Just like any other judge I don’t like hasty generalizations overall. Remember, you can’t just say your points. You have to prove that they can win.