Kellams,+James

About me:
I have been a debate judge since 2007 and a certified coach since 2009 working in the Northeast Ohio NSDA district and under the Ohio Speech and Debate Association. I judge and coach PF, LD and Policy. Our district tournaments adhere to the so-called traditional NSDA style of debate. Nevertheless, I do have experience with more "progressive" styles of debate.

General judging preferences:
How fast you can speak depends entirely on how well you can speak. I try to keep a rigorous flow so my attention is split between listening and writing so there is a speed at which I will lose it. I don't know how to convey where the limit happens to be but if you tend to drone in a monotone, mumble, slur, double or triple-breathe, etc. the limit is less. If you are fast but very articulate, the limit is higher. Always be clear and slow with tags and cites, especially if you intend to constantly refer back to your card cites.
 * Speed**

I am not rigid on time limits. You should try to always finish at the time limit. You may go over the limit as long as you keep it less that fifteen seconds. If you are asked a question when time expires, I will give you up to about twenty seconds to answer it. However, if you cannot get a question out before the time expires I will cut you off. Being under time is never a voting issue. Finally, I do not like giving time signals. Please time yourselves. If you ask for time signals, I will try to comply but don't get angry if I miss some or all of them. I think it is more important I flow your debate. I am rigid on prep time but I tend to allow "flashing" cards for the opponents 'off the clock'.
 * Time**

Always stand during cross-x if you are physically able. I do not flow cross-x but I will listen and I tend to evaluate your ethos based upon how you handle cross-x. If you are giving the cross-x, ask questions, don't give speeches. Don't make new arguments during cross-x. It is very likely I will ignore them. Don't make rebuttals during cross-x. If you are in a team event, I will allow some tag-team type cross-x as long as the seated partner does not tend to take over.
 * Cross-x**

I give strong preference to good evidence, clearly cited, properly quoted, and not misrepresented. If you are asked to show evidence to your opponents do so promptly before the opponent's next speech.
 * Evidence**

Maintain a professional demeanor and attitude always. Do not act rude or arrogant to your opponents and especially towards me.
 * Behavior**

Disclosure will be at my discretion if allowed by the tournament.
 * Disclosure**

How I score and decide Lincoln Douglas:
My general judging style tends to be tabula rasa. The only facts or truth are those exposed in the round. I will not debate against or for you on the ballot. If you deviate from my traditional view of LD, I will shift my judging style and become more of a policy-maker (see non-NSDA arguments below).

I prefer the traditional value premise / value criterion framework and will always look to framework first, contentions second, speech skills last. (Please don't let it come down to speaking skills. Please.) Alternative frameworks may be acceptable as long as they are relevant to the topic and clearly explained. For the contention debate I am listening for claims, warrants and impacts. You may extend or cross-apply your claims when applicable but I give preference to extending claims with new warrants. Show me your depth and knowledge by how well you communicate your arguments. Don't tell me a contention falls. I will decide which contentions fall.

Non-NSDA Styles of LD:
I have experience in the circuit style of LD but since I have policy debate experience I will likely shift my judging paradigm toward policy-making and weighing the impact calculus. While I will still want to evaluate your value framework, I am listening for well-warranted claims and impacts in all of your arguments. Following are my general preferences with respect to circuit style LD:

I will listen to it. Treat each violation separately. Avoid rote, recitation of standards. I want to hear substantive reasons why I should vote for T as an a-priori issue.
 * Topicality**

I view most CPs as a shift in advocacy. If you run a CP you are for the most part, relinquishing your claims, if any, to no harms in the status quo. Therefore the CP must be competitive which means, non-topical, mutually exclusive and net beneficial. Keep the net benefit separate on the flow, please. I __**do**__ see permutations as a test of competitiveness. For me, condo good/bad is a waste of time. I don't like PICs, severence, etc. because I don't really want to hear a bunch of boring CP theory cards. I will vote them if necessary but my speaker points will reflect my level of dissatisfaction. I want substantive clash.
 * Counter-plans**

I would prefer if you didn't but sometimes a topic is begging for a K. If you must go there don't expect me to understand the core premise as well as you. Explain it and give me a substantive reason why I should vote for it. Give me a clear alternative. This is very important. If your alt is "reject my opponent's case" I will be inclined to ignore it. I do have a tendency to give a good deal of weight to your opponent's real world impacts when you decide to run a K so be prepared answer those claims.
 * Kritiks**

Please just debate and avoid going here, otherwise look at what I said about the T and K debate.
 * Other Theory**

If I didn't cover your concerns here, ask me before the round. After that, if I open my mouth it will be because you forced me with some violation of my preferences.