For LD: Prefer traditional LD debate format but open to hear progressive forms, highly discourage spreading since I won't be able to understand you so I won't be able to judge for you or vote for you!

Fair, clear and respectful works great.

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.

I want each word to be articulated so that the average person can understand what is being said.  So if you go fast ensure you are actually articulating every word.  In the real world it is about how you articulate your words with rhetoric and logic to persuade a human heart and mind.  Logic and presentation of the logic is paramount.  Articulated logic trumps emotion any day.  Which presentation did a more persuasive and clear job of convincing the average everyday person on the street that their argument was more convincing.

I am the debate coach of a high school team for 20+ years now. I used to do Lincoln-Douglas debate when I was in high school as well. I'm very familiar with both LD and PF. I'm not big into policy terms or speed. If you speak too fast for me, be forewarned that you will probably lose speaker points and possibly the round if I can't understand you. While we do offer Student Congress at our school, I'm not as confident in my abilities as a parliamentarian. However, I can easily judge Congress through the Lincoln-Douglas lens.

I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.

Email chain: rhetorrao@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

I am most comfortable with a traditional policy-like strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.

I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.

Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.

Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.

I don't have a problem with speed as long as you remain persuasive, organized, and engaged.

I won't disclose, but I will offer oral comments after the round.  

Signposting and clearly labeling warrants, impacts, links, and voters is advised.

If you go new in the 2, fib about a point being dropped, or argue with my oral comments I simply stop listening.  If during the round, you notice me put my pen down, then you may view that as a clue.

Run any form of argument you like; I'll always have an open mind.  

That said, I have no problem striking down arguments that are non-topical, unfairly shift burdens in the debate, or too garbled to flow.

I am a traditional/quasi-progressive judge. I enjoy creative arguments of any sort as long as they are argued well. However, if you chose to run more policy-oriented arguments, do not drop the value debate. That always is a key element when deciding the round. Also, do not drop any arguments. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.

If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.

Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues.

Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.

I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible.

I was a LD debater when I was in high school and have judged for the past 8 years. Additionally, I research all the LD topics. As a result, I am very familiar with the LD format and the arguments for the given topic.