Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

EXPERIENCE: 
I'm married with children, have a master's degree, read widely, and enjoy current events.  In high school, I competed with one year of policy and one year of LD and several individual events, such as oratory, humorous interpretation, extemp, and dramatic interpretation. I love debate because it helps you see that most issues have pros and cons on both sides. 


THE GENERAL PARADIGM:
I want to see that you can recognize and point out the most important aspects of both cases, and that your points are supported by both logic and evidence. I will flow and watch for you answering your opponents arguments and advancing your own. 

Be respectful. I will automatically vote against rudeness or ad hominem attacks. 

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS:
I prefer debates about the topic, supported by evidence, and some explanation in your own words and understanding about what matters in the round.  I might entertain a kritik or other philosophy if it has a reasonable connection to the actual topic and includes evidence.

SPEED:
I can handle moderate speed, but have good diction and state your outline markers clearly.  As long as I'm taking notes, I'm following, and I'll put down my pen if I can't understand you at all. 

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.