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.

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.

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

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.

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.