Background in Policy, very flow oriented. If you spread, slow down on tags. I will also say "CLEAR" if you aren't being coherent. Don't make me say CLEAR more than twice in a round.

Make sure you extent your arguments through the round or else I will hesitate to vote vote for them. This means extent your case through to the summary and final focus, no need to extent them in your rebuttal. Your rebuttal should mostly be used to refute your opponents case.

Cross-Ex should be cordial, and feel free to ask for each other's evidence.

Towards the end of round, I like when you point out to me your voters, and I want you to impact calc them.

Mis-tagging or mis-using evidence to prove a point which the cards don't warrant is a severe mistake in my book. The cards don't have to be perfect, just don't use blatantly bad evidence.

I almost exclusively judge Varsity LD and have done so for a few years.  I am looking for a debate with a clear value clash and a logical framework.  Feel free to run theory.  I can keep up with a fast flow, but don't let speed impede your meaning or clarity.  I enjoy a good cross-x.  Play nice and have fun.

Former Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debater in the 90s/ 00s. I have coached for nearly 20 years in a mostly TRADITIONAL circuit.

Speed is fine if taglines are clear, and as long as you don't treat debate like an evidence dump. My request is that you spend the time to weigh the impacts and implications of any argument you run.

I hate whining (fairness arguments) and attempts to win on technicalities. Don't tell me what the rules are- there is a huge discrepancy between rules and norms. I don't buy disclosure theory. Don't run it. You both have infinite time...

I weight the round holistically. I pay attention to cross-ex. Things said during cross can help and hurt you.

I enjoy narrative cases, if done well.

Be civil and nice. I. CANNOT. STRESS. THIS. ENOUGH.