Most important thing first: He who wins the framework, wins the round. He who wins the framework wins the round. He who wins the framework, wins the round. Ok? Yes, you can argue against the contrary if you want.

No spreading. I will put my pen down and stop listening. I feel no ethical or professional obligation to strain myself to understand someone trying so little to be understood.

Philosophy and framework debate matter before all. I have a masters in philosophy. Impact doesn't really matter, if philosophically you can't prove that the impact would be a good thing.

I pay attention during cross examination. Concessions made there are binding.

I've done this for some time, but I am traditional and have no patience for progressive LD tricks designed to avoid a debate. This doesn't mean no critique, but it does mean that your critique had better demonstrate deep understanding of the deeper philosophic issues at play or I'll just dismiss it as sophistry. Theory? Again, fine if you really demonstrate a deep understanding of the philosophy. I feel likewise about cleverly redefining words in the resolution. I'm fine with a fine-tuned definition of words and their meanings but you had better have a really good reason for redefining a word away from its commonsense, everyday use. Again, you could have that reason.

While I'm not a lay judge, if a lay judge couldn't understand you, we have problems. It's up to you to be clear, not up to me to demonstrate I can listen. The real Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated before farmers with less than an eight grade education in Freeport and Peoria IL. Let them be your guides.

I am a student in my fourth year of Sequoyah's Speech and Debate program, and have participated in LD all four years, and consequently am very familiar with it's structure. I participated in both Big Questions and Extemp Debate at Nationals 2018, as well as Congress at other National tournaments, so I am very open to different styles.

Speaking: No spreading. Please don't. For my sake, for your opponent's sake, and for debate to really be debate, don't spread. Considering that speaker awards are rarely given for LD, I take speaking as a factor in my judging. If you stand up, prove you know what you're talking about, and really sell it to me, that will benefit you in the round. Be passionate!

Cases: I'm good with really anything, theory, off-cases (such as Kritiks, CPs, DAs, etc.), philosophical arguments, whatever you can use to prove that your position is more important.

Arguments and Actual Debate: Lots of clash is great, but I know, not always easy. If you can, try to create clash in your arguments, and the round will be much more entertaining. The V/VC are also very important, so make sure not to forget framework debate.

Overall, just come in and have a fun round, that's all I want to see.

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. Make good, consistent arguments with clearly stated and explained evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. For high speaker points, I look for good sportsmanship, confidence, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting, and timeliness.
3. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
4. Signpost as much as possible (i.e. please reference the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow).
5. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
6. Actually summarize in your summaries! No new arguments in final focus. Create the narrative and convince me to vote for you.
7. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

I am partially deaf, please speak concisely and audibly if you are speaking with speed. If contention level clash comes to a standstill I will vote off framework. If you clearly win framework and impacts then you will easily get my vote. Disrespect towards myself or your opponent will end up in a loss of speaker points and will not be tolerated.

Background:

I am a Law and Public Policy Major at Mercer University, and I attended Sequoyah High School in the past. I was in Lincoln Douglas Debate for three years, so I know my way around the block. Prefs:

- Spreading is fine, tell your opponent before the round, and upon request, you must flash cases.

- You will time yourselves.

- I do not care about sitting or standing during cross.

- I follow the unspoken rules of LD- so NO new arguments in the final rebuttal, no flowing CX, etc.

- Progressive and Traditional forms are accepted. Just make sure your case has clarity and links.

- I will disclose unless told otherwise and give critiques, at the discretion of the competitors.

- Behavior unbecoming of debaters will result in loss of speaks. Be fierce, not offensive.

Good luck debaters.

No spreading.

Be respectful to your opponent.