England,+Christy

I debated all four years of high school for James Logan; three of those years were spent debating at circuit tournaments. I also coached a couple of years after graduating. I've judged at Cal and Stanford for 5 years now.

In general, I strive to be a non-interventionist judge. This means I’ll try my best to base my decision on arguments made in the round and not my own opinions or preferences. This also means I’m open to any argument and judging framework you want to place me in.

However, you can help me remain non-interventionist by doing a few things:

-Make comparative and holistic analysis: This doesn’t have to be in the form of an overview, but overviews can be useful in this context. If you compare arguments and weigh impacts for me, I don’t have to intervene to do so.

-Avoid blippy arguments: This means I won’t have to flesh out analysis for you where it doesn’t exist or extract/cross-apply warrants from your cards that weren't articulated in the debate. So make sure you do the analytical legwork that is required to win an argument, especially for more complex and substantive arguments (this is especially applicable to kritiks).

-Articulate your framework and why you should win within that paradigm.

-Be clear: Speed is fine for me, but I need to understand you, especially in the rebuttals.

If you have any other questions, just ask.