UCONN BA in Political Sciences

QVCC Associate's Degree in Human Services and General Studies

Keiser U MSE in Teaching and Learning

Policy Debate Background:

Attended NU’s NHSI of Speech in 1981, TOC in 1982. Judged at Northern Virginia District NFL qualifiers in late 80s. Judged at Bronx-Science, Edison, Wake Forest tournaments in early 90s. Judged at DDI summer camp 1992. Attended UVM’s Policy Debate Teacher/Coach’s Workshop in 2004 and UVM’s Workshop Debate Across the Curriculum in 2009. Judged at UVM's summer debate camp tournaments those years. Judged at Yale U. policy debate division at HS Invitationals in 2004, 2009, and 2012. Judged at UDL Nationals in 2013. Volunteered at 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Springboard Series NSDA, and UIL policy debate scrimmages and online Capstone Springboard tournaments.

Given my home state of Connecticut’s lack of a policy debate division, I am overjoyed to be able to participate in the policy debate community on-line. It is an honor to judge policy debates and I feel strongly in the education policy debaters receive from debating their rounds.

While I lean towards policy-making I have learned to accept that Kritiks have become mainstream in the policy debate community so I seriously consider them along with other arguments such as T, Counterplans/permutations, DA/turns, etc. Presumption, framework and role of the ballot will need to be elaborated beyond blip responses.

It is important to reestablish your affirmative ground in the round in the rebuttals by extending the case harms/advantages once you take out or turn the negative arguments.

Please provide a roadmap of arguments at the beginning of speeches. Signposting and numbering are appreciated. Do not be afraid to persuade by slowing down to emphasize more important points such as weighing arguments and impact calculus. Never underestimate the power of clarity by slowing down and varying speed. Policy debate is fun!

I would like to extend appreciation and congratulations to the NSDA and all their participants over the years for their 100 year celebration!

Hey guys!

I'm so glad that you guys have decided to participate in such an amazing curriculum. I started to debate my junior year and got the fantastic opportunities to compete at state in policy and congress, as well as NSDA nationals for Original Oratory! I currently get to compete on an amazing Parliamentary team at UT Tyler with the most incredible coach who has raised several national title holders. I love debate, and you should too. As for my paradigm here it is!

Policy; I think the most important thing in the debate is education, Don't focus on winning or losing but what you take away from the debate, I think it is the affs job to prove that the world is worse than the status quo and if this is successful I will vote aff. However, if the neg proves otherwise, I would vote there. But other than that, I am open to any debate, I love K's as a parli debater, showcase what you have!

Congress; Congress can be aggressive, passionate, confident, and reasonable and you will succeed.

Extemp; Really focus on your movement and language throughout the speech, it really gets my attention, but also be organized in your speech and stances.

speech events; the more passion the better

I am a current speech and debate coach in Texas. I have coached multiple state medalist and NSDA qualifiers across the different speech and debate events.

CX Debate:

Topicality: On face topicality is a voting issue for me. It needs to be run correctly with standards and counter standards weighed out in the round. I usually default to reasonability over dueling interpretations at the standards level. To win T the negative needs to prove in the standards why this case is so problematic to the debate space that it isn't worth evaluating.

DisAds: I enjoy evaluating a good link story that has a clear bright line to impact debate. Impacts need to be weighed out in the round and shouldn't be overly weak to thumper arguments. In the impact calculus I care more about probability and time frame than I do magnitude. With that being said if you are running soft/social impacts instead of extinction you need to provide a framework argument for why I should value those over loss of life.

CPs: Counter plans should meet the following criteria or I will have a hard time voting for them. 1) Untopical 2) Competitive 3) Mutually exclusive. Perm arguments need to make since. Perm do the Plan then the CP seems strange if the CP calls for abolishing infrastructure that the plan will live in.

Oncase: Strong up to date oncase arguments are my favorite in the space, because for me they are the quickest way for me to evaluate if the affirmative is a credible policy option. The negative team should try to turn the case or at least go for solvency take outs.

Kritiks: I do not have the time nor the desire to read your literature base. So you should assume that I have not. That being said I will listen and flow the K in the round. If the affirmative team can handle the link argument and/or discredit the alt I will usually go affirmative on the K.

Theory: I enjoy theory arguments in the space, but they really need to apply to something that has happened in the round. Just like with T the negative has to carry the standards and voters of the theory through the entire round if I am going to vote on it.

K Affs: I mostly judge the UIL circuit in Texas so I am not super familiar with K Affs. In round education is not just for the debaters its for the judge as well. I have given up my time to judge the debate and want learn more about the topic. If your K Aff meets the standard of expanding my knowledge on the current topic I am more likely evaluate it favorably.

LD: I will update this later.

Effective communication which shows in a student's manner, preparation, performance, and substance. In debate events, it is important to offer evidentiary analysis and specific clash with either policy issues (CD/CX) or values/criterion (LD) without games. Pretty basic.

I really like policy. Common sense policy. Counterplans are great if you can sell it to me with the skills mentioned above.

Kritiks, no. Conditional arguments only if you are clear where you are going with it. I just don't exist in a world where we debate with those strategies. Does not mean I will vote against you, but I just may not understand where you are going with them. Be clear and persuasive, and I'll be more inclined to give you the ballot. Please don't be jerks in the round--I do like some decorum. Not asking you to be phony nice. Win the round with your policy and your ability to communicate that to me.

For larger school circuits whose debate style includes speed/spreading, I will adapt but not a fan. This is TFA and not UIL, so I respect what you are accustomed to on this circuit. I would ask the same courtesy of your coaches if they were judging UIL.

Jack Black rules. Be like Jack.