Last changed on
Sun April 16, 2023 at 2:55 PM CDT
I'm a former policy debater with over 30 years of judging, coaching, and teaching speech/debate at both the secondary and collegiate levels. I've judged every event at one time or another. For roughly 15 years, I was on staff at Cameron University's summer speech/debate camp and worked in the following debate divisions: Beginning LD, Beginning CX, and Advanced CX. I am currently a professor of communication studies at Cameron University where I teach public speaking and argumentation & advocacy.
I believe that debate teaches critical thinking, logic, argumentation, perspective-taking, and persuasive skills.
General Judging Preferences:
Policy Debate
I prefer strong, organized line-by-line and clear roadmaps. If you spread, be clear. If I can't understand you, I won't flow it.
I'm good with various types of case structure, although I do listen for stock issues.
Negative teams are free to offer a variety of on-case and off-case positions (e.g., disadvantages, topicality, kritiks). I'll vote on them, but you must weigh impacts and offer me voters.
I'm partial to "old school" debate theory: PMNs, PMAs, Justification positions, Effects T, Extra T, Counter-warrants, Counter-plans, etc.
I'm not a huge fan of conditional counterplans, but I'll consider them if necessary. I expect counter-plans to adhere to certain theoretical requirements.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
- I like philosophy and want to hear some of it in a value debate round. Please don't turn a value debate into a policy debate. There is a difference.
- Be sure to establish a clear rationale for your value and criterion. I prefer debaters who connect and reinforce their value and criteria throughout the round.
- Persuasive skill is important in LD debate, particularly in regard to public speaking style and presentation. Speed is necessary at times, but be clear and understandable.
- I like LD debaters to offer 2-4 key voting issues in their final speeches. Crystalize, summarize, and persuade me.
Public Forum Debate
My approach to public forum debate is similar to my policy debate paradigm (see above). I'm pretty open to all types of argument, but please take into consideration the time allowances of the speeches. You don't have much space to develop positions in-depth, so use your time wisely.
Be clear, persuasive, and give me reasons to vote for you - crystalize, summarize, and persuade me. Justify your arguments wilth clear logic, purpose, and evidence/analysis.
Also, I pay particular attention to your framework/weighing mechanism. Establish it clearly and reinforce it throughout the entire debate round. Get back to it when you offer your voting issues.
