BG:

Currently, I'm a radio news producer and have been for the last two years. Prior to kick-starting my career, I debated in college for 3 years, coached high school debate for 4 years, and competed in high school debate for 4 years.

I'm really up on current events, considering current events are my 9-5 and hobby. However, I love to learn new things and hear compelling and unique arguments.

In college, I competed in parliamentary debate. The best way to describe the event is like policy debate and extemporaneous speaking combined. I coached all forms of debate. And in high school, I did Oregon parliamentary debate and Public Forum.

What I like to see:

I'm a big fan of clash and having a clear flow. If I don't have it down on my paper, I'm less likely to vote for the argument. I'm a bit of a scatterbrain (thank you ADHD) so while I can keep up with a hoppy flow, I would prefer it keep it as clean as possible, for yours and my sake.

I enjoy strong impact and link debate and believe that's usually where the debate comes down to. When judging K debate, I believe framework and the impact debate are most important.

Additionally, I LOVE hearing arguments you wouldn't normally hear or go for. So, that wacky K or questionable disadvantage... free game. Debate isn't just about winning--I believe the fundamental point is learning and getting better at the craft. Try new things out when I'm your judge. I'll give you feedback and let you know how to make the case stronger for your next round.

I'm fine with speed, but will clear you if I have zero idea what you're saying. If I clear you or your opponent does more than twice, I would recommend just slowing down.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of trigger warnings when talking about sensitive subjects such as sexual assault and suicide. I won't automatically dock you if you don't inform me that you'll be talking about this before the start of the debate, but I probably will have a sour look on my face.

As always, feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

I was in forensics all four years of high school (mid-1980's) and debated Cross-Ex (policy) with the same partner all four years. By the end we became quite good and made it to semifinals in state our junior and senior years (but sadly never won). It is fun to be associated with debate again, now as an assistant coach and judge, but my how things have changed! Between spewing, spreading, flashing, even using computers instead of 4x6-inch evidence cards, policy is a totally different animal. I feel that arguments and discussions are more "wide and shallow" than "narrow and deep" these days. That's fine, but I rarely give the win to a team whose strategy is to "shotgun" and overwhelm the other team with so many (arguably superficial) arguments that they cannot counter them all. I much prefer a debate where there is actual thought and good arguments and clash over key issues/weaknesses (aff or neg) than both teams hitting the search button on their computers to find some pre-baked counter to each point. Good thinking, respectful clash, and killer non-BS arguments make for an enjoyable, satisfying debate.

Specific aspects of my judging philosophy/paradigm:

Stock issues: I think these are important, but they are not the sole determiner of my vote, and neg needs to bring up the weaknesses, of course. Solvency is an important one. The aff can show significant harms but if they cannot show (with evidence) that their plan will reduce or remove these harms, then it is hard to support the plan. But, the neg needs to point that out and maintain that throughout the debate. CPs etc will also be evaluated through the lens of policy stock issues to the extent that is appropriate. Keep things on-topic with the resolutions, as well.

Kritiks: You are welcome to run Ks, and I recognize that it is common that people have stock generic Ks they run against every aff case, but they will have to be very, very good to win with them; I prefer policy debate that sticks to real, pragmatic issues and... policy!

Speech sharing/flashing: I guess this has become the norm. Philosophically, I don't like flashing because it removes the burden of *listening*, which decreases the quality of the debate. You are free to flash, but try to be efficient. Most importantly, remember that as the judge, I do not have access to the files that you are flashing (and I don't want them). So, make it clear to me what you are discussing and referring to. If you say, "the card at the top of page three," I will have no idea what you are talking about.

Spreading/spewing:ItisfineifyouwanttospreadduringtheconstructivespeechesbutIaskthatyouspreadonlywhenreadingthecardandthatyouslowdownatinybitandsignpostwhereyouareinthestructureofthedebateandalsospeakclearlywhenindicatingthesource(authorandyear)ofyourevidencecardsifyouspreadthroughtheentirespeechthenitwillbehardformyoldearstokeepupandmyflowwillgetmessyandifIamnotflowingwhatyouaresayingthenitwillworkagainsyouIpreferthatteamsspendmoreenergythinkinganddevelopinggoodarguementsanddevelopatacticalstrategythantryingtoradtheequivalentofthebibleineightminutes.

Nuclear war: A few years ago I judged a debate in which the neg said that the aff's case to train dolphins to swim stretches of ocean with advanced sensors on their backs will lead to nuclear war. Really? Really?? Fortunately, the aff said, "Ok, folks, let's take a step back and acknowledge the absurdity of what the neg is postulating." The policy topic certain years might involve geopolitics and under certain circumstances nuclear war might indeed be a possible outcome. But please keep it real and reasonable.

Games, hypersensitivity, BS: The worst round I ever judged was actually at a state tournament. A female participant pretended(?) to take issue with a member of the other team using the term "you guys" during cross ex, saying that it was a manifestation of gender bias engrained in today's society and that her team was disadvantaged from the start because of this denigration of women. The other team should have ignored it, but instead tried to explain that historically cavemen were the food gatherers while the women stayed at home with the kids, and that helped establish today's societal hierarchy. It went downhill from there. Participants were crying, apologizing, another judge became upset with the frame of the arguments and huffed out of the room. I wish I could have given a loss to all involved. My requests: please stick to the debate issues and don't try to play games.

I'll close with this postscript to my high school debate experience: I graduated from high school over 30 years ago and today in my career I find myself working closely with and having to convince individuals, committees, national governmental agencies and international organizations to agree with my point of view and adopt policies or direct money towards the causes I am championing for. I'm pretty successful at that and credit the training I learned during cross-ex debate. It all comes down to listening, digesting, considering the others' perspectives and presenting arguments in a way that are digestible and enthusiasm-generating. Professionals have low tolerance for BS or insincere arguments, and the real world does not involve kritiks. (Imagine if the bank loan officer you were asking for a loan responded, "No, I will not grant your loan because that is supportive of capitalism that is the root cause of many of today's problems in the world.) As a debater, I encourage you to learn listening and critical thinkng skills, to not race through things and to step back and look objectively at the situation you are dealing with.

Thanks for reading.