I use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.

K debate is the best, I really don't care what ypu run just convince me what I should be voting on. That being said mosts cps are abusive so I normally err towards aff.

spreading is fine, flash your evidence prior to speeches.

most likely wont vote on T

make sure to do some type of framing in your rebuttals

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.

I believe in well constructed Affirmatives that are Prima Facia. I believe T is used as a generic argument to waste time. Unless the case is actually Untopical/Abusive, I won't vote for it. I like to see real world argumentation with real advantages/disadvantages. Unless you can actually tell me the closest we have been to Nuclear war, and that we are there now, I won't buy it. Let's see clash on the stock issues. I would much rather see you debate the actual topic rather than debate theory. This is Policy debate

Spread at your own risk. If I can't understand your points because you don't slow down and label contentions and points, how am I going to know where it goes on the flow.

I haven't met a K that I have voted for.

LD-I just want clash and a spirited debate on Values and points. I will flow everything in the round and use it in my decision making

PF-I want to see good clash of points with sound reasoning. And politeness in CX. If you are rude or barking in your Crossfire, it will probably reflect in your rankings