I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

I am a policy coach at heart with a stock issues/policy maker blend paradigm. I love on case (stock issues) clash in the 2NC. I don't like Ks, but if they link and the alt can't be permed, let's go. T arguments acceptable. Please do not cry abuse and then run 3 DAs. Either it is abusive and you couldn't prepare or the T needs a new voter. For other styles of debate, down the flow attacks and answers are always fun. Be calm, cool, and competitive.

CX-

Stock Issues

Make sure taglines are clear

Do not spread too fast - evidence matters and I need to hear it to understand your case

Do not like topicality arguments-fine to mention if you feel argument is non-topical, however do not waste excessive time and allow judge to determine if the argument is or is not topical.

Do your best to present on case arguments. If Neg ignores the AFF and presents only generic attacks, you will lose points, please debate the AFFs case.

If you run a K or counter plan, make sure you do you fully vet and present your arguments. These options require more convincing.

Prefer you not to go nuclear unless it is necessary.

I'm the debate coach at Hennessey HS and started the forensics program there five years ago. Previously I coached at Kingfisher HS and I also was a CX debater at Kingfisher. All in all, I've been involved with this activity now for 26 years.

I'm very old school when it comes to what I like and don't like in a round because, well, I'm old. But more specifically, here are my "paradigms."

1. I will vote on a stock issue every single time if you win it.

2. Aff. cases should be topical. This goes without saying, but apparently I have to say it now.

2. I don't like critiques, counterplans, squirrel cases, or any other things the "creative" debate people have come up with over the years to try to take away from what a CX debate round was meant to be (in my opinion.) That's not to say I've never voted for one, I just really, REALLY don't like them.

3. If I can't understand you, I don't flow. If I don't flow the argument, I can't consider the argument. If I can't consider the argument, I can't vote on it, and it's out of the round. I don't have a problem with speed, but clarity is key.

4. EVERYONE needs to flow the round.

5. NEGATIVE TEAMS- RUN CASE ARGUMENTS!!!! This is one of the most under-utilized strategies in CX debate, in my opinion.

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.