LD: I'm a pretty traditional judge. I like philosophy and will vote on clash first (both framework and the flow), then I'll look to see that arguments were responded to, but I care a lot more about winning the most important arguments than the most arguments. I do not want to hear theory or spreading. I'm a history teacher and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about.

Policy: I come from the LD/PF/Parli/Speech world, so I would say I’m going to be as Trad as possible. Because of that, I’m probably going to be a little biased against K AFFs, but I’ll listen to anything with an open mind and I’ll pick whose policies are still standing at the end of the round. I will flow and I will listen.

PFD: Don't do policy. I don't really like statistical debates and I'll generally ignore any argument that you say will lead to the end of the human race or kill millions of people. Just win the round by arguing the resolution. I'm a history teacher, and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about. I'm also an economics teacher, so if you're going to run any kind of economic argument, make sure you know what you're talking about.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying.Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation.

PF:

I am a traditional judge. I will flow.

Speed should not be that heavy, I think slower and nicely articulated arguments are much better.

Rebuttals should have good analysis and not just evidence that says the opposite.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Interp/Speech Events:

Interpretation and Speech events are judged on the criteria of engagement, character development, and fluency. An excellent performance engages the audience and brings them into the world that the speaker is creating; the speaker maintains the audience's attention through clear diction, eye contact, and gesticulations (etc.) when appropriate. The speaker's development of their characters should be distinct and crisp; it should not be difficult to identify when another character is speaking based on their voice and body language. The fluency with which a speaker performs is aided by great engagement and character development; a fluent performance helps the audience suspend their disbelief that the performance is not real and helps to immerse them into the world of the piece.

Original Oratory/Extemp:

Original Oratory and Extemporaneous events are judged on the criteria of organization, credibility, engagement, and fluency. Good organization in a speaker's performance includes a clear outline of the speaker's topic, position on the topic, and main speaking points. A speaker also uses their physical space effectively to further punctuate their point changes and transitions. A credible performance is constituted by the identification of at least one source per main speaking point. An engaging performance involves the speaker's use of diction, eye contact, gesticulations, and intonation to appropriately stress and emphasize different important aspects of their performance. A fluent performance is free from filler words and unintended pauses.

In all events:

Regardless of the event, the manner in which the speaker conveys their speech is the most important element. As long as the information and subjects of the speech are not overtly offensive or derogatory, they do not influence rankings.