My paradigm is simple. I am an old school debate judge (having done LD back in the mid-90s). I value solid evidence. I do not appreciate old evidence as we are usually debating very present-day topics. In addition, I like seeing good analysis on topic. I will also base decisions on over-reaching arguments that are dropped/addressed in a round. Finally, I loathe spreading. I remind all students at the beginning of each round.

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

In Forensics, I look for realism. I do not want just acting, I want you to really feel your emotions. I will take a person with less blocking or "polish" but more emotional realness over "the perfect forensics piece" any day. Showing me the thought process of your character on your face while you are speaking and hitting those emotional highs and lows will always be important to me, as that shows me that you aren't just reading a script, you are trying to be a real person. "Forensics robots" make me sad, to be honest, so I really want to see those moments that look like they were taken out of our everyday lives, not just characterizations that feel two-dimensional or "cartoon-y."

In high school I competed in Duo, Multiple, and Poetry twice. In middle school I mainly competed in Duo, but also did Poetry, Sales, Storytelling, and Dramatic Interpretation. My favorite category is (and probably always will be) Poetry. During my senior year of high school, I even earned the MSCI State Championship Title in Poetry Slam, winning with a poem about my love/hate relationship with Slam Poetry. I loved putting together cohesive poetry programs for competition and now help others to do so as a coach for Mason County Central High School in Scottville, MI. Previously, I was a coach at The Roeper School in Birmingham, MI. As a college student, I now am studying Secondary Education at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. I am majoring in English and am pursuing a teachable Speech minor to continue my work with the Michigan Speech community. I am an active member of both MSCI and MIFA, and have worked with the DCFL as well.

In Debate, I look for how well you argue and support your points. I am also looking for a solid framework that is not only logical but is also clearly presented to both your competitors and judge. Having the "right cards" is not as important to me as your argument, but I am not one to shy away from asking to see your cards during the round. Please be kind to your competitors and do not take yourself too seriously. If you are a Spreader, I will dock you points. Arguments are meant to be heard and understood, not read as quickly as possible to stop that from happening.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for two years in high school through the DCFL. I went undefeated my senior season, becoming the number one seed in our league and made it to the NCFL National Tournament that year. I have had experience coaching and judging both LD and PF debate since then through MIFA and the DCFL.