In OO, I like a speech to have a balance of academic writing and personal narrative. I prefer novel topics with a clear connection to the speaker.

In EXT, I like to see a speech that is well-researched and clearly answers the question. Evidence is important, but so is logic.

In IMP, I like to see a speech that clearly interprets the quotation and attempts to explore the topic in a persuasive way.

A well conducted debate is like poetry in motion as the participants engage in verbal jousting to unseat each other. The most important thing for for me when judging is the camaraderie exhibited amongst competitors. Winning is important, however, not at all costs. Therefore, I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answers, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves. bring I am fascinated by speech and debate, have run debating clubs in the past and generally enjoy a well-reasoned argument with solid supporting evidence.

Furthermore, in the aforementioned spirt of camaraderie, whereas it might be difficult to accept that a result has gone against you, I appreciate a team or individual that respects my decision rather than seeking to educate me on the nuanced complexities of debating and judging. it is also important that debaters seek to focus on the practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner rather than seeking to dazzle or bamboozle with a plethora of facts and stats, obscure theories or arguments of definitions.

Finally, while it is ok to very evidence, this should be a rarely used tool. I believe that all participants have invested a lot of time in preparation for each event, it is therefore important that we accord each other the courtesy of not evidence checking every piece of evidence presented. As a judge, I will not dismiss an entire case due to a mistaken, misquoted or misplaced piece of evidence. Should you have a strong conviction that a piece of evidence quoted by your opponent is awry then merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "non-circumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find. Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote or may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet.

I began judging speech and debate in 2022, so technically I am quite a novice. However, as an ELA teacher of eleven years I have experience with keenly identifying thesis statements, arguments, powerful evidence, concise elaboration, and of course, rhetoric.

I will endeavor to judge every round from a blank slate, which means you should not attempt to classify my judging as "tech" or "truth." In general, I view debate as a truth-seeking exercise; the responsibility of each debater is to convince me that their side of the flow will result in a better world or society. That means that while I will keep a thorough flow of the debate, one or two or even many dropped arguments by one debater may not matter if that debater convinces me of the wisdom of their own side of the flow. Every debate collapses to one or two central ideas, and the debater who uses sound logic and thorough warranting to convince me that they have won those central ideas will earn my ballot.

Speaking: Although I prefer a more conversational style, I am open to the speed that some circuits require. However, I still view debate as an oral communication activity. I think every debater should go out of their way to make every round accessible, not only to the people in the room but also to those who might judge our entire activity by what the round looks and sounds like. If you choose to ignore this advice, so be it, but know that your choice may cost you speaker points.

Respect: You have a responsibility to make every person in the room feel safe and respected. That means you should consider both your opponent and your judges in deciding how to approach a round. If your opponent is a ninth-grade novice and you are a senior two-time top qualifier, don't exclude them from the round by debating in a way that is not accessible to them. If your opponent or judge asks you not to spread or to run tricks, please respect their wishes. Good debaters can adjust their styles to their opponent and judges. Any argument or behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or diminishes any person's humanity because of their identity will earn you a loss.

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hypertechnical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters. There is a reason why Public Forum exists outside of Policy Debate and is why Public Forum has a larger tent and is more open to outsiders without extensive debate experience. A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner. 

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves. 

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "non-circumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find. Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.