Rayburn,+Joshua

I am a college debater with two years of parli and LD experience, though I have also judged high school policy rounds so I am familiar with it as well.

I believe a judge should be as tabula rasa as humanly possible. I am not inherently opposed or akin to any particular argument over the other, meaning you need to win those arguments and explain how they are good, competitive, or bad and abusive, etc, etc. I want warranted arguments, not blippy turns and refutations, give me constructed responses with evidence and support. I like to think of myself as a flow judge, meaning you must win the internals of an argument in order to access the impacts, but DO NOT FORGET TO WEIGH IMPACTS. I believe a round should consist of equal parts 1) line-by-line refutation through the positions and 2) weighing out impacts over your opponent in a probability, timeframe, and magnitude scale; telling me why they matter in painting the big picture. I appreciate respect and proper presentation for both me and your opponent. I am not opposed to partner talk in round but I will not flow any responses to POIs or points of order that come out of the seated partner, meaning if you are fed an answer make sure you repeat it in your own words or I will not flow it. I am not the fastest flow in the world but I can hang with most speeds, just pay attention to your critic and make sure you're not flowing them out of the round (audience adaptation).

I will say that I believe LD was put in place with rules that oppose spreading and the K debate. That is not to say that I will vote against you if you use either/or, only that you need to have good answers as to why it should be allowed in the round and why it is still within the jurisdiction of LD. Likewise, if you hit someone who spreads or uses Ks, feel free to run positions against it, but you still need to warrant out the position, I will not give you any instant or easy wins.

Be clear and organized. Win the line-by-line. Weigh out impacts. Have fun.