Woiwood,+Ashton

I debated LD at valley for 2 years and also PF for 2 years. I coach valley PF currently. I will vote on nearly anything as long as it is warranted and has something to do with the ballot. I prefer to do the least of judge intervention as possible, so don't try to win me over with non warranted emotion based arguments (looking at you PF). Below I will go into detail, since I judge both PF and LD I will give a specific philosophy that I have for each type of debate.

__**Public Forum**__ I consider myself as a tech judge when it comes to PF debate. I will be flowing as you speak, and if you try to extend an argument you dropped I will be the first to know. If your try to bring up new arguments in your last speech be aware that this will affect your speaker points negatively. Furthermore, when it comes to speaks I'm usually a point fairy; but understand if you are disrespectful during CX I will be more then glad to take more then a couple away. When it comes to arguments I will vote on anything as long it is argued and extended well. When I mean anything I mean it.

//Theory// This includes theory, but if you choose to run theory it must be actual and not perceived abuse. Also regarding theory It must be done well for me to vote on it. Don't give me a half baked theory shell and expect me to buy it. Lastly regarding theory I'm ok with RVI's due to the time constraints of PF, I RARELY vote off theory in PF so be aware that I will probably not vote on it. So don't waste your time.

//Other considerations//
 * Frameworks are usually nice to have, and I will adjudicate using said framework.
 * Impact analysis and weighing are critical, do not overlook this.

__**Lincoln Douglas**__ I consider myself as competent at judging LD, again as said above I'm ok with any arguments you want to run. I'm usually cool with speed but please slow down during theory, K's (I'm ok with non-topical ones btw) and spikes. I love argument interaction on each level of the debate. I'm ok with most arguments but with more esoteric arguments I prefer that you slow down and explain your position clearly. Theory is fine, again I want to see actual abuse and not perceived abuse. Use your framework if you have one, don't shy away from framework debates (although lets stay away from value debates, looking at you Nebraska...) Jason Smith explained nonverbals excellently I just used his. "//hands off the flow = I'm very lost, hand twirl = move on, nod = good argument, confused = I'm skeptical of your claim or I'm somewhat lost//."

I like points, show me more points. I do not adjudicate offense. Run Defensive arguments only Counter interps must be said while doing interpretive dance. I think the role of the ballot is ballet. Retroactive extensions are fine. I think that debators ought not be taught to bot... (ok I'm running out of rhymes) I vote down formal wear, looks to high falutin' to me. Debators that avoid using the word "the" get extra speaker points. -im seriously considering this for real rounds... I dislike evidence, tell me how you feel. Before rounds if you follow me on instagram and like my posts I will like you back. The only arguments I'll vote on must be a priori. RVI' are fine, RRVI's are ok, RRRVI's is where I draw the line. Your framework must either advocate "for the children!!" Or "For the glory of ashtar!" I believe that debate is best done in a theater like environment, collude with your opponents before round. If you can put together a play of your arguments double win 30's. If you cant win an argument try to distract your opponent, if they keep pushing yell until they stop asking questions. In cx I prefer that you mime your questions.
 * __Joke paradigm__** (available on request)

media type="facebooklike" key="https%3A%2F%2Fjudgephilosophies.wikispaces.com%2FWoiwood%2C%20Ashton" width="450" height="80"