I am looking for competitors who speak clearly and present their material so that it can be uderstood easily. Those that speak too fast so that I can't follow will lose points in my book. Clever and original materials and presentations are my favorite. Have fun and be respectful.

Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

I am new to judging Public Forum but I have seen enough of them to understand what should be expected. This debate should be a very active and should engage in the discussion of the assigned topic. The conversation should be very focused on the topic at hand and all evidence should be related to that topic. I am great at putting my personal bias aside and I will only use what is presented in front of me. If you think something is very obvious to make sure to present it. The best is to assume that I've been in an underground bunker for the last 40 years and I know nothing of the world.

I am not a huge fan of card calling if it just to discredit the information without you providing some kind of evidence contrary to the fact that is being disputed. I do look more at the key points and how well you supported them throughout the debate, in addition, to discrediting the opponent's points.

Congress Paradigm

Congress is an active conversation about the bill or resolution at hand. I am looking for participation from everyone. Remember questions are great and help spur the conversation but no points are given. When giving a speech for either aff or neg I do look for those that have their speech memorized and are actively engage their fellow delegates. When you are answering questions remember that yes and no answers, although valid, is a missed opportunity to further support your speech.

1. The faster you speak, the greater risk you run that neither your judge or your opponent will catch what you're saying. I am not against speaking fast per se, but if you talk so quickly that you slur words and I can't understand you, it will put you at a disadvantage. Even if you include me in an email chain, clarity > speed and concision/potency > sheer volume of words.

2. I look for clash, which I define as a dialectically progressive correspondence between argument and counterargument. I won't look favorably on a rebuttal that is simply a rehash of your case. Don't just tell me that your previous point refutes their contention; give me a new reason why.

3. LD: Stronger cases will have strong value-criterion framework. If you depart from this convention, your justification must be solid and explicit.

4. Off-time road maps are great, but if it consists only of, "First, I'll be going over my opponent's case, then going over my case," then don't bother; that's the bare-bones function of a rebuttal speech anyway and I already assume you'll do that. Give me more structure: signposts and summaries that reinforce your speech's structure throughout are even better.

5. Don't be rude. It will cost you dearly in speaker points.

6. I reserve the right to determine for myself what the voting issues are for the round in a neutral evaluation of your case, your opponent's contentions against it, and what has arisen to carry the most ethical and logical weight during the discourse. However, you are more than welcome to advise me as to what the voting issues should be from your perspective.

7. I'd be delighted to shake your hand after the round if you wish.

I watch for a professional presentation, including courtesy toward all competitors, diction, enunciation and speaking just fast enough so the facts presented are understandable. It is better to eliminate thoughts than spew facts.

Winning entry is determined by the actual argument presenting convincing facts and sources.

Experience:

I've judged several debate tournaments over the past couple of years. I had the opportunity to judge at National's this past year. I'm familiar with most debate formats.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but not to the point that I can't understand you. If I can't understand you I'll simply put my pen down and stop flowing.

Topicality:

I like arguments that stick to the specific topic given, make sure you link arguments directly back to the resolution.

Plan/Counter-plan:

In PF do not bring up any plan or counter plan as it is against the rules.

Evidence:

I like strong evidence to back Up claims. I am an unbiased judge. I'm hoping to be convinced through strong evidence.

Civility:

I love teams that are passionate about their case, however I don't like it when that passion turns to hostility against their opponents. I'm okay with a debate getting heated, let's just keep it civil.