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 and are one of the core reasons why policy debate has little value as an educational activity, in my opinion. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk. I have never heard a theory shell run in round that didn't make me feel like I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back - but hey, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

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.

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, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

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.

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.

CONGRESS:First and foremost, facts and data, with IMPACTS (why your point is important). Second, an effective speaking presentation (good eye contact, emotion, effective hand motions, etc.). Third, clash and rebuttal. You get a 6 if you use good evidence to make unique points, and present them in an engaging, unforced fashion, and defend yourself in crossfire by getting at the root of the argument and/or giving succinct counter-arguments.

SPEECH: Obviously, nothing that breaks the event guidelines (e.g. touching the floor, going beyond the grace period, etc.). Otherwise, I am looking for a performance that conveys the emotional feelings of both performer and author(s), or makes a clear and powerful claim/commentary. I consider it the mark of a good piece if I get lost in the performance (can almost visualize the story in my mind in addition to on the stage) and have to drag myself out to write comments.

DEBATE: Most events I am a lay judge, so I will be going off of my overall feeling for the round, but I try to pay attention to the flow and sources. The best cases highlight their clashes and explain why they matter, without straining the impact.

Bio

My experience in the world of debate spans about nine years across local, state, and national venues. I competed in congressional debate for all four years of high school and have judged intermittently since. I have experience judging all four debate categories but congress is my favorite. In fact, it was my time in competition that helped inspire my higher education pathway as I recently completed my bachelor's program in political science, with a concentration in American foreign policy.

Congressional Debate

I evaluate competitors on a few core aspects.

First, your acting skills - do you pass as a member of Congress? There are many great, knowledgable speakers who need to improve their acting skills. Lean in to the role and make me believe you really area congressperson.

Second, eye contact and inflection. They're two of the most common improvements that I note on ballots. I don't require extemporaneous speaking for a good mark, but consistent eye contact to the audience delivered with appropriate inflection is needed.

Third, cross examination skills. I'm easily impressed by an insightful line of questioning, but easily put off by aggressive badgering.

Best of luck.