He, Him.

Spread all you want, but you'd better be good at it or lose your speaks.

I coach, so don't be abusive.

Yes, I'm flowing.

Policy - Policy Maker

LD - Theory & Phil.

PF - Analysis and Clash

Extemp. - Analysis and Composure

Be clear and concise. Come prepared, Organization is key, don’t jump around. 1 or 2 sources per contention are good; Understand your argument and give me all the details of why the opposing side is wrong, don’t just disagree. Contend with ideas. Maintain respect for your fellow congress members at all times. I love to see clash. I like seeing you link the AGD at the end and crystalize your areas of analysis. Performance is also something I value. If you are a 3rd or 4th speaker, advance the debate to the best of your ability, I will disregard reiterated points unless they are built upon. Tell me WHY it matters, how it works, and back it up with reputable sources, you'll most likely gain my favor. PO keep the chamber moving and organized. PO is the heart of congress and I will be relying on the PO to keep things moving in an effective manner.

Most of all, HAVE FUN. There’s nothing I appreciate more is seeing you all enjoy doing what you do best.

Speech: OO/INFO

Speech structure

Delivery style

Sources

Tangible Solutions/applications

Analysis of topics

Speech: IX/USX

Answer to question well thought out response

Roadmap

speaking style/delivery

sources and deep analysis of points made

Speech: Interp DI/HI

Clear teaser to develop setting

Intro with clear argument and support

Delivery/style

overall literature and performance

Speech: Duo/Duet

Clear teaser to develop setting

Intro with clear argument and support

Delivery/style

overall literature and performance

Partner balance and dynamic

I am a coach of three decades. I am a bit old school. I prefer a policy or stocks approach. I want to see clash on the topic. I am not a fan of kritiks, neg nor aff, especially kritical affs. I realize I'm taking ground away from those that don't like traditional debate. I will add I've submitted double loss ballot a couple of times in my life. I am a fan of topicality when run properly. Like a disAd (disadvantage), it has critical components that must be present. If not and called out by the opponent then I'm going to side with the call out, 9 times out of 10.

Now that we've moved to virtual fomat, if I have my hands up around my face then I'm not flowing. I'f I'm not flowing it isn't going to help you at all. If you don't know what flowing is, well I don't know what to tell you other than I'm old school and still listening to Bob Seger.

LD - First two sentences above are the same here. I believe in communication over quantity. I believe LD is a value & criterion debate with support from the contention levels. I’m not for CPs and DAs in LD, this isn’t policy debate. I do not like speed in LD. If both debaters take the stance, “forget you, I’m doing what I want to do,””. Then as the judge I may be left to basically a flip of a coin. I’m still running against the wind.