About me: Debate and extemp speaking for a couple of years in high school in Texas, 35+ years ago. I honestly remember very little about policy debate. Assistant debate coach and judge, briefly, 25 years ago while teaching school. Practicing attorney and trial lawyer for 21 years.

My son's school is a newer debate program (1.5 years), and I've been judging debate (PF, LD) and speech (OO, extemp, impromptu) events since Spring 2018.

Paradigm:

I appreciate organization and signposting in debates, and off-time roadmaps are fine. Tell me which arguments you are refuting. Tell me your contentions (e.g., say, "Contention 1," "In response to the Aff's Contention 1," etc.) so that I can outline/flow easily.

Tell me what your voters are. Defend your value as being more important than your opponent's value, etc. It's better not to drop more arguments than your opponent does, although drops don't mean you automatically lose my vote if your case -- as a whole -- is more effectively proven. Impacts are important.

I try to flow debates. If I were to go into court and spread my case to a judge or jury, would I win? If I were a candidate for public office in a values debate with my opponent, and I spread my arguments to the audience, would I win? If you speak too fast or unclearly, I will miss something, thus I do not PREFER spreading (although this does NOT mean you get an automatic loss if I can understand what you're saying). I find most spreading to be monotonous and unpersuasive.

I like traditional debate, and prefer that you actually run a case supporting or opposing the resolution as given and refuting your opponent's case, rather than running theories or PICs, or whatever. As I say, these are preferences, but are not automatic win/loss. I like real debate of issues. To be fair and open toward each individual, I do NOT vote my own beliefs. If you convince me that your case is better, and you are more persuasive -- even if I disagree with what you're trying to prove -- then you can still get my vote.

Pronouns: She/her

I have NO TIME FOR HATE. Any comments that are offensive, racist, bigoted, transphobic, misogynistic, etc will result in an automatic drop. This includes: speaking down to opponents, using improper pronouns/misgendering, using offensive terminology, etc. Speech and debate is about respectfully allowing our arguments to shine through, not attacking one another; therefore, I will not tolerate it.

LD:

I am an old-fashioned LD judge. No spreading. If I cannot hear an argument, I do not judge that argument. It is not my job as the judge to figure out your arguments; it is YOUR job as the debater to tell me what they are.

I want to see framework debate. LD is NOT Policy! 99% of the time I'm not interested in solvency. I also usually drop counterplans, because that's subverting the intention of LD.

Also, personal pet-peeve: poorly cut cards. Cards should not be cut stringing disparate words together to change the intention of the writer of the card. If you can't pull a clean quote out of it, choose a new card.

I am a firm believer in the idea that an LD round ought to be understandable by anyone off the street.

Congress:

I reward active speakers who participate and advance debate. Rehashing in a late-cycle or giving speeches just to give a speech and not to advance debate will NOT be rewarded. I do notice who is just giving speeches and who is giving speeches, proposing motions, asking questions, etc.

Experience in CX, LD and PF with preference for LD.  Regarding LD, prefer a more traditional style of debate focusing on value and philosophy.  Policy arguments are usually a nonstarter and unlikely to sway.

I competed in college in Policy Debate [so long ago- melting polar ice caps was an unlikely impact :(] and was a DSR*TKA National Champion in Duo. I was a litigation attorney for 14 years. Since 2011 I have coached high school speech and debate for Christ Episcopal School. We primarily compete on our local circuit.

Please clash directly with your opponent's argument, tell me what is at stake, what I am weighing, and impact your case out. I prefer "calm and fast" to a rapid- fire breathless diatribe; in other words, speed is fine IF I can understand you AND take a few notes. If I am not writing during the constructives- you are going too fast. I like clear voters with a good summary.

I try to come to the debate as a blank slate and will consider anything, but I have heard few kritiks that impressed me; maybe I just don't get them. I am more open to topicality/ fairness because I am primarily interested in reasoned debate on the topic than in gamesmanship.

I like respectful debate, especially when the round is lopsided; points for graciousness. Kill with kindness and be ethical with your evidence and in stating what was/wasn't said/dropped by your opponent.

The quality of the evidence matters to me, but you have to make it an issue. If you want me to vote off of a dropped argument, tell me why it matters.

Be prepared, be ethical, have fun-