I was a high school policy debater back when Ronald Reagan was president. Since 2013, in my "spare time," I have coached public forum. (My day job is working as a law professor.)

Speed doesn't bother me one way or another, but you do need to be clear. I want you to explain to me not just why you win an argument but why the argument wins the round. I'm open to basically any sort of argument, so long as it's not racist, sexist, etc. I try to listen hard to what your evidence actually says; smart analysis of evidence counts for a lot to me, and conclusory evidence doesn't count for much; paraphrased evidence typically counts for even less. Establishing the analytic links in your arguments also matters a lot to me. And weighing is super-important, as early as possible.

I prefer for the second rebuttal to spend some time responding to the first rebuttal and not merely responding to the opponent's case. In particular, if the first rebuttal reads any turns on your case, I will expect the speaker giving the second rebuttal to respond to those turns. If the second rebuttal speaker does not respond to turns, I will consider them dropped. And I don't need the summary speech to extend defense that has not been responded to. I will count defensive arguments for whatever they are worth if they are dropped.

Likes: Depth of analysis, engagement with the other side's strongest arguments.

Dislikes: Cases that are just strings of blippy half-cards, numbers thrown around without context. Don't hammer on particular numbers without telling me what precisely those numbers mean and how they specifically link to your or your opponents' advocacy. (Please don't read impact cards that say things like a two standard-deviation decrease in democracy leads to a three percent rise in infant mortality. What does that even mean?)

I've noticed that a couple of my preferences differ from those of many other judges I've encountered on the national circuit, and you should probably know that. First, and probably of greatest significance, I am far more skeptical of quantitative impacts than are many national-circuit judges. You should expect me to discount any large number that appears in an impact card unless you present evidence of each link that is logically necessary to the occurrence of that impact. That doesn't mean I won't vote on quantitative impacts -- I vote on them all the time -- but when weighing them I am unlikely to take large numbers in impact cards at face value. Correlatively, I am far more open to voting on qualitative arguments than are many national-circuit judges. But do actually make an argument; don't just give me some conclusory tag. Second, I am more open to theory arguments than are many national-circuit PF judges. But you have to actually make the argument. Don't just tell me your opponents are doing something unfair; explain why it violates something that should be a norm of debate and why the proper remedy is to drop them, disregard an argument they're making, or whatever.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Competed in high school public forum for 3 years, from 2014 through 2017, primarily in Michigan state and local level competitions, with a few national events including Glenbrooks, Blake, and NSDA nationals. Judged a few tournaments afterwards, also in 2017.

I should still be comfortable with debate jargon unless there have been big changes in the last 7 years. And even if there are new terms, I imagine context will make them clear enough.

I intend to keep a thorough flow for every round. I care more about the strength of arguments than your presentation style. As long as I can understand the words you're saying, delivery is unlikely to affect my decision, although it can affect speaker points.

To decide the round, I will look at the impacts each side has carried through to the end, and weigh them. You should tell me how and why I should weigh competing impacts in your favor. If you don't explain why your impacts are more important than your opponent's, I am forced to make that evaluation myself, which is not ideal, because my decision will be more dependent on my subjective preferences.

I'm open to a wide variety of round strategies and arguments.

In crossfire, do not speak over your opponents.

Also ensure that crossfire is constrained to asking and answering questions. Don't ask a 10-sentence "question" that's just you trying to extend your rebuttal time, and keep your responses focused on the question asked. Excessive crossfire violations will result in docked speaker points and may even impact my ruling.

Please ensure you remain respectful of your opponents at all times.

I have been in the debate world for 7 years as a head coach, a public forum debate and forensics speech student, a judge, and a state board member.

In a round I prefer road mapping (organized speech pattern), evidence, and follow-through. DO NOT road map outside of speaker time. You are in public forum, not policy, don't steal extra time. If you do a road map outside of the speaking time, I will take speaker points. Don't scream in the crossfire, be nice to each other. Please keep track of your own prep time- I will only give you an indication as to when you have used all of it. Framework is for policy, you shouldn't need it in pf unless it's paramount to your case (hot tip: it's not).

During crossfire be civil. Per NSDA rules, judges are not supposed to be voting based on crossfire, so I will only take comments in crossfire into consideration if it is brought up during a timed speech before the final focus. (Exception to this would be statements from grand crossfire.)

I hate writing down my RFD's so I will likely just do it verbally. I am a scientific and statistical judge- that being said you have to follow through with impacts to win. Laying down 5 warrants and pieces of evidence and not following through on why it should matter to the judge will NOT win you the debate, be sure to ALWAYS bring through your impacts and weigh them against your opponents.

I am a critic of argument, not a blank slate. 

If when you are speaking I cannot consciously register the words that you are saying, then they do not count in the debate. 

If you make a claim that I find to be unsupported by analysis or evidence of any kind, then that claim does not count in the debate. 

A card is not worth more than an analytic unless you make a persuasive argument for why it is.  

The resolution says "should," which means that the debate is about what should be done. The debate is not about what is politically feasible.  Nor am I likely to be persuaded that the debate ought to be about what might be done by those who currently hold power as a result of hypothetical political bartering.  

Without macro-systems-level-thinking, we are all quite liable to get bogged down in potentially irrelevant details and digressions. If we spend all our time focusing on macro-systems-level-thinking, we are unlikely to come up with any good solutions to the very real problems the world faces today.  

If the other team is proliferating the debate with unreasonable and unsupported claims, I advise tastefully and humorously disparage the arguments instead of engaging them substantively (do not disparage your opponents as people. Decorum matters!), Policy debaters could learn a lot from this video:  https://www.vox.com/2017/4/3/15163170/strikethrough-comedians-satire-trump-misinformation

Hello! I started judging debates three years ago and I thoroughly enjoy the experience. What do I expect? First and foremost, I expect your critical thinking on the subject matter to shine through. I want to hear you state your contentions and be consistent in backing them up. From time to time I hear things that I know, as an avid news and history junky, may not be 100% accurate or perhaps less-than-fact-based. It doesn't matter what I *think*, it is your job to poke holes in the weak argument of your opponent. If you fail to do so, I will take that into consideration.

In terms of speed, this subject is coming up more lately. Here is my stance: you can go as fast as you are able but it must not come at the expense of enunciation and articulation. Going fast, just for the sake of it, should not be your goal. The skill and beauty of a well-defined argument is in it's delivery and simplicity. Making a lengthy and/or complex subject simple is truly difficult but valuable work.

Lastly, I am very big on decorum. Dress for your day (no jeans, crop tops, etc). Do not leave your headphones around your neck. Please be polite and courteous when the other team, or your partner, are speaking. This means no nervous clicking of your pen or putting your stuff away because the round is almost over. These debates are preparing you for life. I am judging you in the sense that I have to pick a debate winner while also providing a critique of your performance. Someone who is meeting you for the first time is actually "judging" you.

- Be respectful of our opponents.

- Please speak at a moderate pace. Do not speed read.

- Make your case and make it very clear to me.

- Pretend I know nothing about the topic and you must

EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE RESOLVE.

- Clearly state your sources including the publication, author and date.

- Think of Crossfire as volleying back and forward with questions from one

team to another. You may ask a follow-up or for a clarification of an answer.

DO NOT make a speech ending with a rhetorical devise like, "isn't that true? or

"do you agree?"

- DON'T LIE OR MAKE UP FALSE/FAKE EVIDENCE!

- During the Summation and Final Focus speeches clearly state why you believe

your team is winning.

1. Talk about how & why your impacts are greater.

2. Tell me the contentions, evidence and impacts that you

believe you have blocked in your opponents case.

- Pretend that you are presenting to a Town Hall meeting with an audience of

50 to 100 citizens and you're trying to persuade them to follow and adopt

your side PRO or CON of the Resolve as the policy that they (the majority)

will vote for.

- Smile a lot, have fun, after the round is over even if it was super intense;

thank you opponents for being an excellent team that pushed you to be better.

- Be respectful of our opponents.

- Please speak at a moderate pace. Do not speed read.

- Make your case and make it very clear to me.

- Pretend I know nothing about the topic and you must

EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE RESOLVE.

- Clearly state your sources including the publication, author and date.

- Think of Crossfire as volleying back and forward with questions from one

team to another. You may ask a follow-up or for a clarification of an answer.

DO NOT make a speech ending with a rhetorical devise like, "isn't that true? or

"do you agree?"

- DON'T LIE OR MAKE UP FALSE/FAKE EVIDENCE!

- During the Summation and Final Focus speeches clearly state why you believe

your team is winning.

1. Talk about how & why your impacts are greater.

2. Tell me the contentions, evidence and impacts that you

believe you have blocked in your opponents case.

- Pretend that you are presenting to a Town Hall meeting with an audience of

50 to 100 citizens and you're trying to persuade them to follow and adopt

your side PRO or CON of the Resolve as the policy that they (the majority)

will vote for.

- Smile a lot, have fun, after the round is over even if it was super intense;

thank you opponents for being an excellent team that pushed you to be better.

Experience:

Competitive:

-PF Debate for 4 years for Brother Rice (2010-2014)

-Extemporaneous Speaking: 5 years (3 years for Brother Rice, 2 years for the University of Michigan)

-Rhetorical Criticism: 1 year (University of Michigan)

Judging:

-PF Debate (2015 – present) for Brother Rice

Professional:

-Programmer in the defense industry (2018 - present)

I typically flow on paper with colored pens in a notebook so there will be a lot of pen clicking.

I judge based on what I hear in the round, but also making way overgeneralized arguments and statements makes me sad inside.

I weigh what I hear talked about more than I weigh stuff that gets dropped by both teams.

Preferences:

Asking to See the Evidence: Don’t use it to steal prep, have a good reason for doing so.

Signposting: Please. Make it easy for me to follow and flow your arguments and responses.

Speed: Talk as fast as you’d like.

Summary and Final Focus: They’re not rebuttals, please don’t ramble. Being clear and concise about why you are winning goes as long way to helping me flow the round.

Timing: You’re more than welcome to time yourself, but my phone’s timer is the authoritative one.

LD is value debate; meaning it's based in present time as a tool to weigh our values in current society and decide our ethical actions to proceed with policy formulation and implementation. This means that the debate ought to be weighed more heavily by framework and normative arguments than empirical statistics or positive arguments. Each contention must be addressed, but individual cards under the contention can be dropped without penalty.
Connect all of your arguments with your framework, and weigh your value against your opponent's.   Demonstrate why your Value is most important, and your Criteria is the best route of thinking to get us there.
Follow the flow, and make it as easy as possible on me to follow in my own notes. (SignPost)
Don't spread - LD is just as much about being a persuasive speaker as it is about clean logic.  If you spread, you will lose points.
Philosophy: We're here to learn. The resolutions are written in such a way that there is no ultimate "right" answer, so simply stick to your case, and argue through as best you can.  Do not be dishonest or unsportsmanlike.
My judging is based upon technical aspects first, then speaking skills.

Philosophy is the search for truth, and Lincoln-Douglass Values Debate exists to do just that.
Truth > Tech.