Woodward,+David+Michael

Debated for George Mason University for five years, second year coaching for George Mason.

[|Go here,] this is where I'm going to update my policy philosophy from now on. Pretty much I don't care what you read, I reserve the right to not vote for an argument if I think it is problematic. It's actually very difficult to make me feel this way about an argument you make, and you'll know if I think your argument has a problem
 * Policy**

I am not familiar with this style of debate. What I know of it comes from judging it during my undergraduate career and from how I can tie it to policy debate. I never participated in this style of debate.
 * LD**

Clarity is important- I focus less on the value/criterion parts of the debate, mostly because it often isn't made a big deal by the end. If I had to resolve a debate on this issue, original presentation is important, so starting slightly slower than normal to make sure that I understand your definitions and defense of them is important.

On that note- speed, I don't care, go as fast as you want as long as you are understandable and clear. I will tell you if you are not clear or understandable.

Policy arguments and Critiques/K's- fine with me, read my policy paradigm for how I feel about what needs to happen to effectively win my ballot.

I've never heard theory in an LD round, but I'd treat it like policy based theory, which is depending on the violation, so for example if conditionality is an issue, it's a reason to reject the team, same with topicality. Other arguments depends on the situation and the argument. RVI's are not an argument.

Generally be a nice person and we'll be fine. Sassy is different from hostile.

Very little knowledge of current topics, my only involvement with public forum over the past couple of years was with working at the GMU debate Institute's Public forum lab this past summer. I debated PF when I was in high school, from 2006-2009. Pretty much from what I've seen the format has significantly changed from when I competed. But from what I can tell:
 * PF**

I'm very flow centric- mostly from doing/coaching policy debate for the past 7 years or so. I'm not a good judge for teams who focus on sounding persuasive over making arguments. There should be warrants behind every argument extended in a final focus, and an impact to why I should vote pro or con. Teams who are successful with these three things will have an easier time winning my ballot.

I've found that depending on the topic, teams often make arguments that are incredibly insensitive or racist. It's better for your credibility and speaker points if you did not make these arguments in front of me. I will let you know about these concerns after the round if I find your argument to violate this request.

I do not care about speed or attire to a certain point. I will believe that speed should be slower than Policy or LD, simply because PF is aimed for a more lay audience, but I'm not going to comment unless I believe you are actively speaking too quickly for a public forum round, and even then, it's unlikely I'd drop a team for doing so.

I do disclose unless the tournament doesn't allow the judge to. In that case I will do my best to give comments on what can be improved without disclosing the winner and hopefully write out a legible ballot.