Prefer cordial, holistic, and congenial analysis.

Use of data as well as understanding of scientific theory is essential.

Be kind.

Fair warning: I'll pretty much toss everything here out the window the instant you're an unpleasant or disrespectful jerk in-round, including being a smarmy wanna-be comedian looking for dumb jabs at your opponent.

Stopped coaching and judging "full time" in 2018 to move back into academia. It was a healthy move, but my flow speed has tanked since then. Deal with that.

TOC top speaker in 2006. Former PF coach and active judge. Philosophy, Art and Theatre degrees.

Easy Mode: I disclose results of every round unless attacked by tab not to, and even then just ask me in the hallway before tab yells at me twice. However, you'll know before the end of the round pretty easily what's up just by paying attention. I'll laugh at patent absurdity and scowl at obtuse knuckleheads. My facial expressions detail *exactly* how I feel about what you're doing in every moment. This is bad community theatre facial expressions kind of stuff, people. Use it and react to alter what you do and run in the round.

PF tl;dr-->Expect second team to respond to attacks on case in rebuttal. Summary should crystallize the round, not be a rebuttal expansion. Will not vote on morally reprehensible water tester arguments like 'genocide good' or 'climate science is a liberal lie'. Will vote down on reprehensible decorum including blatant sexism and harassment. Default neg on presumption of affirmative burden of truth/net outcome or in case of insoluable flow.

LD tl;dr-->Somebody entered me in the pool by accident or desperation. I still have a philosophy degree if you're willing to slow the heck down...but I've honestly enjoyed nearly every round I've been in.

CX tl;dr-->Did it and moved on. Not here by choice. Do professional theatre and art criticism, and did Theatre of the Oppressed with Boal at UNO, and continue to be a Joker as part of pedagogical practice. Not impressed by shenanigans. Slow it down but don't insult my intelligence on argument structure.

Longform (PF primary)

It will forever be my goal to treat debate as a fundamentally educational activity. If I have one goal every tournament, it's to make at least one team know that they got the best possible feedback and push forward they've ever gotten from a judge and member of the debate community. We are here to make sure debaters come out the other side of a round as better students and people.

I am happy to see PF move in new and intelligent directions. Willing to listen to direct-clash TV-ready Ted Turner Debate as well as traditional policy maker standpoints, kritiks, theory, and performance elements if presented clearly within the confines of PF time structure, but recognize that you still have to make the round at least productive and educational for all involved rather than attempting to exclude or undercut other teams with a blatant attempt at LD or Policy approaches, and only 4 or 2 minutes to present them. This new-ish nat-style, hyperdismissive wanna-be technical jargon-fest is both annoying and utterly embarrassing in how much it gets wrong in trying to pull from LD and CX. Stop it. Use your time to build a core narrative with solid comparative analysis, not card dumps and baby's-first-topicality.

I hold to a line-by-line flow and expect second team to respond to attacks on their case in addition to engaging the other team's case. Turns and dropped arguments are voters if presented by a team, but in cases of competing voters: theory-framework and direct impact calculations should be done by the debaters. If I end up with null arguments that lack interaction analysis I will look elsewhere before coming back to pick apart the argument interaction myself.

Framework for round structure and impact weight should carry with it minimum standards of preference vs competing frameworks, be it educational, grounds based, or decision process justified. Competing frameworks should not drown out the remainder of the round, especially if you're going to go evidence heavy or engage in competing ideologies. You can still win the round if you accept your opponent's framework if you meet it and can offer comparative analysis that places you in a preferable voting position...and most of the time counter framing is just bickering in PF. Pick one and win everywhere else. If it's truly abusive, it should be an easy call to standards to say so and move on or prefer yours.

Summary should be THE place to present the clarity of your round vision, and make solid decisions on what the round has become, what can be disregarded, and where it should end up. No new arguments [and ideally no new evidence] from here on out. Final focus is an opportunity to pull from the summary vision and perform, crystallize, and leave no question on your side winning.

Aff must show, at minimum, the truth of the resolution. In cases of "on balance" resolutions, you must engage in comparative analysis to develop the status of this truth. Magnitude, time frame, probability, and threshold offer basic elements to compare two impacts.

I will pref neg if aff fails to meet minimum burden of resolution, or if round is left in an inconclusive position/null impact state. Don't expect great speaker points for anyone if that second situation comes up.

So long as the tournament/circuit rules doesn't explicitly forbid it: competitive alternative advocacy is fine by me. [Facing NSDA rules on plans and counterplans though, just follow them explicitly] Permutations by aff against alternative actions by neg are just tests of competition unless you push for wider terms of impact from the perm. However, if aff can show that neg alternatives are non-competitive vs plan/resolutional action, no amount of competing 'solvency' can push neg for a win without them also presenting a net harm to aff that has been dealt with via comparative analysis. Hey aff! Topical counter or alt with no net benefit or harms from neg? Just coopt it, and we can be cool.

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull render a final ballot decision on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

Generally start at 28 on speaker points and move up or down. 30 is perfection in speaking, argument structure, logic and overall sense of "this is what is good about a PF debater". 26 and below are reserved for refusal to engage in clash or logical analysis while simultaneously being a totally unpleasant individual in terms of respect towards your opponent or myself. Speaker points are an opportunity to send a message of the kinds of interactions that will and will not be acceptable in a safe and educational environment.

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the event as a whole. Keep it respectful, smart, and funny within the round and you'll make it a better day for everyone involved.

Respect and decorum. Don't talk over your opponent, don't talk/pack up while they're speaking. Cross isn't for arguing.

Updated 4/11/2024

My Background

I graduated from Lincoln Southeast High School (in Nebraska) in 2015, where I primarily competed in Congressional Debate, but often did Public Forum as well. After high school, I graduated from Nebraska Wesleyan University in 2019 with a BS in Political Science, and minors in Business Administration, English, and History. During and after college, I was an assistant debate coach at Creighton Preparatory for about 5 years.

After college, I moved to Japan to teach English in a small rural town, but came back to the US during the Covid-19 pandemic. I worked for almost a year (accounting/admin assistant) at a fire equipment/general safety company, until I moved to Chicago to start law school at Northwestern University. I will graduate from Northwestern in May 2024, and sit for the bar exam in July.

General Preferences

Generally, for all forms of debate, I want you to follow the standard format of claim, warrant, impact. If you dump a ton of evidence on your opponents, but don't explain why it actually matters to the debate, I will not weigh it as heavily as evidence that is fully warranted and impacted out.

Framework - If you provide a definition or observation/burden in your case, explain why I ought to evaluate the round within your framework compared to your opponent's framework or my own conception, especially if your definitions or observations are unconventional or obscure. This is not permission to provide an abusive or unfair observation or definitions.

Flowing - I flow everything I hear, and nothing that I don't. If you drop arguments, whether those be your own or your opponent's, that will likely hurt your case. Ultimately, sometimes a round for me comes down to which side did a better job of extending arguments and impact across the flow.

Speed - I flow on my laptop, so I'm okay with some speed, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with my ability to understand your speech or to flow the round. I highly prefer a relaxed and emphatic delivery over a rushed one, and if you are speaking too fast for me to follow, you run the risk of me dropping an argument on the flow. Spread at your own risk.

Speaker points - I tend to be on the more generous side of doling out speaker points, because ultimately, what matters is which side better explains their arguments/wins the round. I have occasionally, but infrequently, given out low-point wins.

Prep time - A personal pet peeve of mine is when you tell me to start your prep time. I'm actively watching the round, I can tell when you are starting prep. Additionally, if you call for a card, I will not run the time until you are given the card by your opponent; time starts as soon as you start reading the card or taking notes. DO NOT waste time by not having cards available for your opponents; if your opponent asks for a card and you take 2 minutes to find it, but your partner is prepping off the clock in the time it takes you to find it, I will be extremely displeased.

Congressional *DEBATE* Specifics

I'm often asked to be Parliamentarian in Congressional Debate rounds that I judge. (I loved POing as a competitor, and I love being Parli now.) I greatly appreciate that Congress has a clear set of rules to facilitate faster, fairer, fuller debate. Please follow them to the best of your ability. I'm not a fan of students/other judges/parliamentarians encouraging/allowing suspension of the rules, because it's unfair to students who are following the provided framework and expectations. If you show a good understanding of Parliamentary Procedure, that can sometimes result in a rank boost, and I always consider ranking the PO, whether I'm a Point Recorder or the Parliamentarian.

There is a reason that I emphasize that this is a debate; please do not come to a tournament with completely pre-written speeches. In my opinion, the only speech that should be prepared 100% beforehand is the authorship speech (I would love to see these off-script, almost memorized), and every other speech should be formed on the spot, based on research and some basic bullet points you want to cover, but built around and adapted to the previous speakers on that topic. I dislike speeches that ignore/don't refute/build upon previous representatives' points. I similarly dislike rehash. If you pre-write a speech, you will ignore previous points/speeches and likely have rehash. Please keep in mind that this is a debate event.

Public Forum Specifics

Summaries should start to wrap up and address the main arguments that were relevant in that round. Final focus should hammer home why you won those points. If, in rebuttal, summary, or final focus, you drop something I see as a big argument, expect that to be reflected in speaker points and outcome of the round.

Lincoln Douglas Specifics

I know very little about the mechanics of an LD case beyond value premise and value criterion. I also have only a minimal background in philosophy. Therefore, I think it's best to consider me a lay judge in LD. I prefer a traditional value-criterion centered argument, in which you directly tell me why to weigh your case/framework over your opponent's. I'm not as familiar with Theory or K Debate, but I will try to follow along.

Policy/Chicago Debates Specifics

Like LD, consider me a lay judge in Policy. I will try to follow along as best I can, but when it comes to my RFD in policy rounds, most of the rounds I have judged come down to my flowsheet. If you spread beyond my ability to understand, especially if the speed is what I'd consider to be particularly abusive to your opponents, I probably can't flow, and you probably won't pick up my vote.

I am now old. I have been debating/coaching since 1995. I have coached state champions, national qualifiers, recipients of TOC bids, as well as terrible, terrible teams that confused hegemony with Heidegger. 

I believe in the resolution. Not this specific resolution and not as an affirmation statement, but as a source of educational insight and means of creating competitive equity. That being said, the manner in which either of these things are achieved are entirely up to the debaters. I do not care if you affirm the federal government, present legislative action, etc., but what I do ultimately care about though is that you engage the resolutional topic directly (oceans, surveillance, etc.).

I will absolutely listen to framework and topicality arguments arguing about the validity of USFG action, especially in terms of roleplaying, but I have no predisposition in terms of its value. Impact analysis regarding fairness and education should drive this debate.

I hate multiple world arguments, especially when it is demonstrated with conflicting kritik alternatives and/or counterplans. The negative can have the SQ and one other option, but not 12. It makes for bad debate and I have yet to see anyone prove to me otherwise.

I enjoy strategy, especially well executed and specific strategies that both criticize the Affirmative and present a viable alternative. DA/CP/K combinations that all interact appropriately will go a long way with me.

I want debate to be enjoyable. I know that rage, anger, passion, etc. all play into the natural affect of the activity, but being mean or rude just for the sake of argumentation will make me dislike you. I do this because I love the activity and you should too.

I am well read in international relations literature (securiziation, feminist IR, queer IR, realism, etc.) but a lot of the post-modern and identity literature is new to me. Run what you want, but do not assume I am well versed in the terminology to assess your arguments on that alone.

-- PF --

I would consider myself to be a "traditional" PF judge, if that helps. I flow everything, but you need to impact and explain. I expect the second speaker to respond to the rebuttal of the first speaker. I am good with speed and most other PF styles and tactics. Spreading is highly discouraged. I don't believe it's effective, good, or educational, and I may drop you on face. If you just read cards at me and don't impact them, don't expect me to weigh them. As well, if you only extend a card by saying "Johnson 18, war is bad, pull through" that puts it on the flow but doesn't give it a lot of weight.

I'm open and willing to hear most any argument as long as you can explain it well and back it up. I tend to give long winded RFDs, so if I get talking for a long time, don't hesitate to say something. Sometimes I forget how long I've been going on.

-- LD --

I don't judge LD often. I would probably be considered the more traditional in terms of LD, and my judging style will be similar to my PF judging. I will flow everything. The value seems(?) to be the most important things, so make sure you tie your arguments back to it. Ask me as many questions as you want/need to, I'm still learning LD. I will also not be insulted if you correct me on something or challenge me on something.