Hi everyone! I prefer a round with a good clash. I am a college debater myself so I am very comfortable with speed as well as theory if you feel the need. Be respectful and most importantly, have fun!!

Head Speech & Debate Coach

Atlee High School

Hanover County Public School

Mechanicsville, Virginia

Adjunct Instructor of Communication Studies

Randolph-Macon College

Ashland, Virginia

Virginia High School League

Student Congress Parliamentarian

Lincoln-Douglas

Public Forum

Policy

All Speech events

I have coached high school debate for twenty-seven years. If you are a progressive (role of the ballot, no value structure, and kritiks) LD debater then please strike me.

Things I like: value clash, signposting, effective time allocation, impact calculus, and rebuttals that focus on analytical comparisons of the arguments (and evidence) rather that repeating your claims or more cards.

Speaks: based on organization and time allocation

Summary: 1. if it's not said in this speech i wont flow it to the FF.

2. Collapse down to fewer contentions, and explain why they drop off the flow (wash, block, etc.), but still go line by line as much as possible.

FF- 1. Give me big picture themes that the round has collapsed to. Not just your voters and their voters, collapse on the round as a whole, big picture.

*I dont flow CX so say it again in speech if its important

** I'm ok with speed, but go easy on me its been a few years

*** I HATE EVIDENCE DEBATES. If there is even in the slightest a voter issue/arg in the round relying on the properly cut evidence, then i will call to see the card. I will treat it as a reverse voting issue if the accusing side is wrong to disincentivize wild accusations.

I have two years worth of experience in college level policy debate.

I have been judging for a little over a year.

I will familiarize myself with the basic arguments on the topic.

One note: if you plan on reading fast and making 20-25 arguments in a speech, then you have your arguments numbered and typed out. If you talk too fast for me to flow your words I will not be able to give a good reason for you to win the debate.

Also if you say, "they say X but but we say Y." This is a competing claim and not a complete argument. A complete argument would be "they say X but we say Y, because Z." Most debaters are good at intersecting competing claims but a lot of them neglect the warrants (reason the argument is won). You can also takeout warrants like this," they say Y because Z, but really Z is wrong." I respect debaters that focus on and engage warrants. In my mind these kinds of arguments make for the best debate rounds. Also if you do not carry over (restate an argument) in consecutive speeches the argument is considered dropped and can no longer be brought up in later speeches.

Major judging philosophy:

I spent my high school career debating Lincoln Douglas and my College career debating Parliamentary (mostly American Parliamentary with some British Parliamentary/Worlds Debating experience). While I will be keeping meticulous flow in a debate round, I am usually more swayed by rhetorical performance, intuitive explanations of causal mechanisms/evidence, and distillation of the round into articulable value clash.

Idiosyncratic preferences:

**I will count your roadmap as part of your speaking time

**I will not flow cross-ex and will leave it to debaters to bring in the salient points into the round

**I will stop listening to anything you say after time

Public Forum:

- I expect a true debate, without the technical structures of LD and Policy debate

- I vote for the side which argued the most-convincing arguments

- I believe evidence should be presented and utilized, but not argued over or leaned upon.

- I believe crossfires should have discussion. They are not cross-examinations.

- I expect professionalism and courtesy. You can't argue against your opponent if you don't understand them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am relatively inexperienced juding an LD debate. If you want me to understand your flow, please be sure to walk through it diligently and with patience. You have a long time for a construct, so use it. However, I do appreciate when a debate consistently and appropriately ties arguments to the value and criterion, as that helps me understand the impacts of the arguments.

I have been a debate coach for the last few yeara.  I am experienced in both LD and PF.  I prefer a conversational pace as opposed to spreading.  You can easily speak so quickly that the merits of your arguments can go unnoticed.  Above all, be respectful to your fellow competitor.  

I did public forum and congress in high school for four years. I will mostly be judging public forum. I would like debaters to prioritize clarity and enunciation in their speeches compared to speed, especially because these tournaments are online. I do prefer off-time roadmaps as it makes it easier for me to follow. I think it's important to extend links, but make sure to extend warrants, as well. Additionally, evidence is very crucial for me, but I don't like just having a bunch of statistics and facts thrown at me, especially for congress and pf. There should be cohesion in your narrative/arguments and I'm looking for overall advocacy/narrative.