Experience:

I've been a coach for three years now, on top of four years of HS debate experience. I am a three-time NCFL Nationals LD and PF judge.

Preferences:

Being persuasive is not just about who can give the most arguments or lots of statistics. It is about clarity, emphasis, and originality.

-Please speak slowly enough that a lay audience could easily understand you.

-I always appreciate creative and unconventional contentions.

-Evidence should be used to support your logical argument. It is not an argument in and of itself. If you simply cite a statistic or authority without explaining why it is true first, you are not really engaging in debate and I will defer to the side which actually explains its perspective logically.

-In LD, implicit rather than explicit values are fine and even preferable in some cases. Framing your value as an end goal rather than a disjointed statement can help organize and smooth out your speech for both you and me. If the two sides have a functionally identical or similar values, there is no need to debate that. The value and VC should only really be relevant if they are wildly disparate - like freedom vs security, or lives saved vs economic growth.

-Don't ask for all an opponent's cards. The only reasons you would need to see one are a), it directly contradicts your own card, or b) you have a strong reason to suspect your opponent is misrepresenting or leaving out context.

-Sitting or standing are both fine as long as both sides do the same thing.

I have been a coach for about 16 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

Background: My educational background is a bachelor’s degree in human resources. I also have a master’s degree in human resources. My dream was to pursue a Law degree but, life got in the way.

General: I value clear and consistent speaking with good eye contact, movement, use of hands and at a reasonable pace that promotes understanding of your topic. Be clear, concise and organized. You should always treat your judges & opponents with respect. Please communicate any time signals you desire.

Help me understand your speech and/or arguments so I can evaluate you better and vote.

I am a parent judge so; I strive to treat you and your competitors with respect and fairness, I expect the same.

Standard, traditional judge, with experience across all events.

Appreciate clash, weighting, and topicality. Structure of your argument should be explicit ("this, therefore that"). I avoid making any connections on my own. Think about it this way--do you really want the judge having to define your argument for you?

Ks: I don't like them. I accept that they're here to stay and can tolerate them in LD (in good faith), but will be skeptical. I do not consider your opponent to have an obligation to treat the K as valid. Ks have no place in PF. Same goes for other nontraditional strategies and theory battles.

Speed is not an issue. I can keep up. If you're somehow going too fast, I may notify you to slow down, or even stop notetaking entirely, but this is rare. If you plan on spreading you better have explicit signposting.

Tech-versus-truth: Moderate. Use your best judgment. As stated above, links should be explicit.

I will not buy wide leaps in logic and do not appreciate attempts to overwhelm opponents with unwieldly links. "This, therefore this, therefore this, therefore this" is not good faith debating and is often nontopical. If you're being especially egregious I may knock you on topicality even if your opponent does not

Full disclosure: I consider all of forensics to be primarily about public speaking but will not be won over by rhetoric, volume, or flowery imagery. Vocal skills matter but that alone will never win the round.

Hold each other accountable, especially on timing. If a speaker goes way over time, that is the opponent's fault for not stopping them.