I am a traditional public forum debater, so don’t spread or try any Nat. Circuit methods because they won't work in PF for me. Go join Policy debate if that’s your style.

I currently debate for JHS, so I am pretty well-versed on the PF topic.

Evidence clash and warranting are essential to me, and good speaking skills will help you a lot.

LD: I had a very brief stint in LD my first year; I don't do it anymore. Treat me like a lay judge.

Good luck if you have me in LD.

Pray to god if you have me in Congress.

Do both if you have me in Policy.

When it comes to debate I am a flow heavy judge, I look to see the arguments that are left at the end of a round to see who won, it’s pretty simple.

I prefer tech>truth HOWEVER I am a traditional judge. So, unless you are able to convince me won’t by an outlandish argument.

Signpost! I can’t stress this enough ESPECIALLY in the rebuttals speech.

Throughout the round PLEASE PLEASE flow your impacts through and tell me what your opponents DROPPED.

Be respectful, kind and have fun :) Good Luck

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

I am a parent judge, so spreading/speaking very quickly and tech-styled debate is not preferred. Just looking for the team which upholds their side better, and weighing/impacts help with that.