I judge speech and interp based on the rules and based on the round--comparing the performances in the round. I think author's intent is important for interp. I think communication skills, organization, rhetoric and evidence is important in speech events.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

In terms of debate, I like to see arguments that flow throughout the entire round. I look for organization in both speeches and rebuttals. I'm fairly relaxed in terms of what arguments are brought to the table. Have fun with it, and convince me.

In limited preps, I love organization, the use of proper citations, and a solid job of explaining your point to me, rather than just "talking" at me.

In platform events, I look for organization mostly. Is your speech easy to follow? Do you provide justification? Do you bring an interesting spin to the topic? Are your implications believable?

In interp events, I look for believability. I also look at the argument that is being presented.

I competed in Policy Debate in high school (grad. 2012) and competed at UIL State. I have been involved with Speech and Debate in varying capacities since then and have coached since 2022.

I value strategy, clash, and believe Policy Debate at its core is still a speaking event.

I would consider myself a “stock issues plus” judge. The stock issues matter to me in debate, but I have grown more interested in progressive styles of debate and will flow these arguments as long as you do the theory work and explain your arguments well. I will not connect any dots for you.

I don’t mind speed as long as you maintain clarity. If I feel you are unclear, I will stop flowing.

I don’t love voting on Topicality because, for most of my career, it has been used largely as a timesuck argument. However, this year, topicality is incredibly relevant. Carry your argument all the way through to get my vote on T.

I prefer highly technical DAs and will be looking for all of the ingredients. One of my most important voting issues will be impact calc!

If you run a CP, tell me why I should prefer your plan. I’m looking for Net Benefits/Mutual Exclusivity for you to win. Spell out how you solve better.

At the end of the day, my decision will be largely based on world comparison and impact calc. Tell me why you should win! Good luck!

For Policy, I am a stock issue judge, I prefer to see the neg directly clash with the plan by taking out Sig/Harm, Inherency, or Solvency and also discussing the workability of the plan. I don't tend to believe that Fiat inherently means every aspect of the plan just happens without planning or discussing the specifics. This means that if your plan costs money, prove that the USFG can afford it. Prove that the agency can accurately enforce the action and that no other oversight is needed. This is Policy Debate and I expect to have a well written policy to test. I enjoy Dis Advantages that directly link and have a clear link chain. They should not jump from China bad to Nuke war with no work up done in the IL chain. I tend to flow PIC Aff unless the Neg can prove that there is a substantial reason that the Aff cannot solve and the PIC is needed. Solvency for CP must be unique to CP. I do not like K's or K theory and will assume Aff can Perm a K unless there is a specific reason why they cannot. NO K AFF. Impact Calc is the most important here, guide me through the round, let me know what flows where, I do not like judge intervention so make me intervene as little as possible on the flow. For speed I say be communicative, be cordial, and be articulate. If I cannot hear or understand the evidence, I will not flow it.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is value debate. I do not like policy plans or K in LD. I want to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation. Define the framework of the round, and do not assume I read your advocacy authors. SpReading is a quick way to lose a debate. If I am unable to understand what you are saying, I am unable to assess your arguments. Semantics are important (words mean things). Rhetoric is important. Strong, supported arguments presented with good speaking style (see Extemp below) are wonderful tools and will win many debates.

Extemporaneous Speaking should be a good representation of public speaking. Speakers' tone should be conversational and not condescending or intentionally inflammatory. I think movement should be limited to one or two steps. Gestures should have purpose without being too repetitive. As a judge, I want to be able to easily outline your speech. I do not want to guess what your body points are, or where you got your information. I think the month and year of publication along with the name of the publication is more than sufficient citation. The amount of evidence depends more on the topic. Cited evidence needs to be sufficient to justify the argument. Usually, five to seven sources is a good benchmark, but I am not willing to rate a speech lower based solely on number of cited sources. Filler words and distracting, repetitive movements are not the hallmarks of good public speaking.

Oratory and Informative should mirror Extemp in many ways. These speeches, however, should be more polished and contain better, more specific citations.

Blocking, gestures, and facial expressions need to reflect the intent of the HI, DI, or Duet pieces. Characterization should be varied enough that I do not have to wonder which of your characters is speaking or moving. Teasers are a wonderful way to get the audience's attention and should be used with that thought in mind. The introduction should tell me who is performing and what they want me to know about the piece, but, most importantly, should clearly articulate the title and author. In HI, DI, and Duet, I like to see acting range. HI is not standup comedy. I am not looking for "jokes per minute." HI needs to be funny overall but can include dark humor and/or serious moments. On the other hand, DI needs to have drama, but can be funny at times throughout the piece.

I believe "strong" language can be appropriate to a given piece. Considerations when using language include demographics of characters, period of setting, etc. However, language should never be used purely for shock value...there needs to be a reason.

The camera angle for a virtual performance of any event needs to be wide enough for the judge to see the entire performer (including the shoes), but tight enough for the judge to notice small gestures and facial expressions. In short, whatever I would see if I were sitting in the room with you, I should see on the screen during your performance.