I am a former high school competitor with ten years experience coaching LD, PF, and extemp. I don't like speed. Debate is a communication activity, and if normal people cannot comprehend you, you are not actually communicating.

In general, I am reluctant to offer paradigms because the argumentation of each individual debater is much more important to me than any pre-set notion of what should happen in a round. As a classic LD debater, I tend to weigh value and criteria fairly heavily in the round -- but if you win the framework but debate everything else horribly, I will still vote against you. Ultimately, I will vote based on your voting issues. Convince me that the issues you've won are the most important in the round, and that's what I'll write on my RFD -- whether that's evidence, framework, or contention-level arguments.

You should know that I have zero background in policy debate and zero patience for people trying to transform LD into a one-person version of CX. I do not admire debaters who attempt to win by putting so many blippy arguments on the flow that your opponent cannot possibly answer them all. In general, please treat your opponent with courtesy and respect, or don't expect to get speaker points.

I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.

I am a former national qualifier in both LD (2014) and USX (2015 and 2016); I'm now a PhD student in the biomedical sciences. I still regularly read domestic news and semi-regularly read world news. I do not keep up with debate arguments anymore, and I do not coach in any capacity -- so please make the topic at hand clear to me.

When it comes to extemp, I am traditional: give me a good speech, standing, with no notecard, and you will do swimmingly.

When it comes to debate, I am most familiar with value debate with a clear framework. I weigh the framework and contentions equally, and want debaters to cover the flow in its entirety. A dropped argument is a lost argument. I do not have experience with the funkier arguments -- if you are using a K or some kind of theory, I will need you to explain it to me without too much jargon. (NB: I am fine with and happy to hear out progressive argumentation, but it must be clear, good, and not abusive to your opponent)

I have little to no experience with policy debate. Similarly, I believe that debate is, at its core, a communication activity. Therefore I do not value speed, nor do I value putting excessive arguments on the flow.

NB: please make the citations for your evidence clear to me - as a researcher, I highly value accuracy and authenticity of sources. If you cannot provide your evidence with full citation and highlighting (if applicable) to me or your opponent if asked, I will strike it from the round.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.