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.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to a non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas is essential to debate.

Debaters should display logic and reasoning, advocate a position, use evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

Neither the pro team nor the con team should offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

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.

Not a lay judge, PF state title holder. Lots of CX and LD experience, so speed is fine with me. To me, clash is very important for all debate types, so make it strong.