I am a policy coach at heart with a stock issues/policy maker blend paradigm. I love on case (stock issues) clash in the 2NC. I don't like Ks, but if they link and the alt can't be permed, let's go. T arguments acceptable. Please do not cry abuse and then run 3 DAs. Either it is abusive and you couldn't prepare or the T needs a new voter. For other styles of debate, down the flow attacks and answers are always fun. Be calm, cool, and competitive.

I am Tabula Rasa and extremely non-interventionist. I am open to any arguments but I will not connect the dots for you. You need to make the argument and demonstrate, not just claim, that your opponents' arguments are weak. I will vote on Topicality if it is run well. I also like impact calculus. I expect good evidence and often call for evidence after the round. I appreciate good rhetorical skills. I have a Stock Issues background, but will only judge that way if you debate that way.

I did CX for 3 years in High School. I went to AFA Nationals in Impromptu Speaking during College. I have judged often since College with @1000 rounds under my belt. I coached in Oklahoma for 16 years. I have also judged in Texas and Nebraska. I have judged college tournaments. I was Senior Staff at Cameron University Summer CX Camp for six years.

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.