I have been involved in South Dakota forensics either as a competitor, judge, or coach since I attended my first tournament as a competitor in the fall of 1993. In high school I competed primarily in policy debate. I'm currently living in the Baltimore Maryland area and hope to become involved in local speech and debate activities again here.

I really appreciate creative, authentic, well researched arguments that show your ability to gain deeper understanding of the topic rather than regurgitate the same arguments that everyone runs every round. As our society is overwhelmed by more and more sources of information it becomes more crucial that people have the ability to critically evaluate data and form rational, evidence based conclusions.

IEs: I have a dark, dry sense of humor and am pretty liberal with what I allow as far content and stylistic decisions, as long as things are germane to the performance and you’re not being exploitive of anyone. Have fun, be authentic, be creative. Don’t be cliche, lazy, or stale. Show ownership of your work. I’m also judging you on your topic/question selection / cutting / research / writing ability. Connect with me. When in conflict, passion almost always wins out over technical proficiency. Sigh, interp is not a contest of who can make the silliest voices. Extemp shouldn’t sound like a debate speech.

LD: I highly value resolutional analysis and definition of terms in LD. Advantageous interpretation of the resolution can drastically swing the momentum of the round from one side to another. The most consistent predictor of my vote in LD is clash and reasoning. Your job is not to do a better job of showing why your case is good - your job is to show why your case is better than your opponent's. I don't like spreading as a strategy in LD - I think it's cheap and lazy and my threshold for adequate response may be lowered. If you do nothing else in your last speech - make a concise closing argument that summarizes the entire aff/neg position.

There may be more in my policy paradigm that would also apply to LD.

PF: I’m still a unpredictable judge in this event. I do not hear many PF rounds as I’m usually placed in Policy or LD judge pools. While the number of rounds I’ve heard has been increasing, I don't yet have what I would call any consistent paradigm beyond rewarding critical thinking. Anything goes I guess. I’ll try to update my paradigm as my beliefs change. Just make sure you tell me where you are and why I care about what you are saying. Framework is a very compelling argument for me and I heavily favor quality evidence over inferences or paraphrasing. There are no arguments that I reject on face or accept unconditionally. The biggest mistakes I’ve seen thus far is teams not using framework arguments to their advantage and teams trying to close for too much. Have a strategy.

There may be more in my policy paradigm that applies to PF.

As a Policy judge I have always considered myself to be a fairly straight forward policy maker. I feel that the skill of adjusting arguments to particular audience is one of the most critical and useful skills learned in competitive speaking and therefore feel strongly that a judge has a responsibility to strive for consistency and predictability in their decision making.

As a policy maker, I am looking for the most advantageous result of my vote using traditional risk-benefit analysis. The winning team in any round I am judging will have provided me a superior "world" after my vote is cast.

While I reject the idea that absence of any particular "stock issue" automatically results in a non prima facie case. I do respect the importance and interactions of the traditional stock issues and am open to argumentation that either suggests a post-vote world is less desirable due to the lack of a particular stock issue, or that from a procedural level the lack of a stock issue (ahem, inherency) is a valid reason to reject.

On the topic of procedural issues, I am very fond of topicality as an argument. Topicality is ALWAYS a procedural voting issue. You don't need to waste your time reading voters or arguing that topicality is not a voting issue. I am looking for competing interpretations of the resolution. The team winning topicality will be the team that provides the most accurate, fair, predictable, etc. interpretation of the resolution. An intelligent, thoughtful, coherent topicality debate is my second favorite thing in the world, and I have two children. Poorly written, "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" topicality arguments are an awful experience for everyone involved and are easily and quickly defeated by most affirmatives. While I rarely have voted for or even on any sort of reverse topicality argument I am open to the concept as an affirmative check on unscrupulous negatives.

Speed: Meh - I understand it is part of the game. I'm not impressed by speed unless it is unbelievably clear. (Spoiler Alert: It's not.) However I will not vote a team down solely because they speak quickly just as I would not vote a team up based solely because they speak slowly. I just honestly don't think it is helping you as much as you think it is. I won't let you know if you are going too fast. If I miss something, that's on you.

Counterplans: One of the absolute best strategies a negative can run. Especially if you've really done some research and prep. I'm annoyed by lazy counterplans. Conditionality is debatable.

Kritiks: I'm not opposed to them but I'm still voting as a policy maker. People rarely choose to run them as a strategy in my rounds so I don't have a lot of experience evaluating them and am therefore prone to making unpredictable decisions. If this is an area of expertise for you, and you do decide to go this route, please be very clear and spend adequate time explaining all aspects or your arguments.

Avoid arguments that are based on the actions/inactions of the people actually in the room. I am not motivated by the idea that anyone in the room becomes a better person because you read something. Everyone is probably just fine as they were/are. If you have beef with something the other team does that you feel should result in them losing the round make some sort of formal complaint.

Round Etiquette: I time everything. Yes you can use your cell phone as timer. Please let me know if you are tracking your own prep as well so I don't have to call out time counts. Speak from where you want, tag team cross-ex is not only fine, but wise to clarify an issue. I don't use prep time for flashing evidence unless it is excessive or obvious that you are prepping while flashing. Don't be a jerk.

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Major Issues:
The debaters are responsible for identifying, defining, and establishing the key issues in the round. I will vote on whichever is the strongest-argued, and while that does sometimes come from a large spread of evidence, it is the interpretation and management of those issues that ought to determine which side outweighs the other.

For example: if both sides agree to debate which of them is more just, that refines the debate to a discussion of that metric. Each can determine how they get to "more" in their own way, but that can happen along a multitude of approaches as magnitude and volume are not the same thing. Debaters should read the round attentively and be prepared to follow the arguments, gaining offense along the way while not leaving arguments available for opponent' extensions.

Plan Text, Solvency or Kritik:
I'll hear just about any argument, but if the debater cannot tell me why that is the better option for framework arguments, I'll default to value and criteria. Clash should be clean and accurately reflect the burdens that each debater accepts after the first two speeches.

Speaker points:
30: your round is suitable for a tournament final
29: your round is suitable for a tournament semifinal
28-27: your round is suitable for a winning record

My background:
I am a 10th and 12th grade English and composition teacher with a literature, rhetoric, and philosophy background. I have served as an LD coach from 2012-2016 and 2020-2021 and am very experienced with both the activity and its myriad topics.

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our What'sTheirName Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

Policy Paradigm

Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.

Any questions, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am most familiar with a traditional LD case structure (value, criterion, contentions), but if you want to go a different route, I'll listen. I'll vote on any argument that is well-warranted and impacted out.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.