As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

As a debate judge, where I spend most of my time, I prioritize content and persuasion. If you think your opponent has broken a rule, of course, point it out, but know that I already noticed, I am taking it into consideration, and I won't be according a win or a loss on a simple rule infraction like new points introduced in the rebuttal. In every event, I expect a certain amount of logic in your argumentation and also a certain amount of evidence (statistics, expert quotes, anecdotes, etc.), although some events will require more of one or the other. I will always look for clash: address what your opponents say when you speak. And speak clearly, not quickly.

As a speech judge, I prioritize engagement and clarity. Inflection and tone are far more important than speed. Creativity, continuity and cleverness will always be rewarded.

I am an experienced LD judge and former coach. By all measure, I am a traditional judge. I want to see clearly outlined value structure and clash between opposing values. I expect you to link your impacts to your warrants. Crystalize your voters and remember; it is your responsibility to show the judge why you have won the round. I believe flow tech is vital. It is the responsibility of the debater to extend dropped arguments not the judges'. I have no issue with speed. I will vote on any argument as long it functions within the structure of Lincoln Douglas Debate. Also, never forget this is a public speaking event; if you are speaking you are standing.

You don't have to read everything.

Try to stay calm and have fun. In addition to fun being a good thing generally, an attitude of enjoyment will also lend itself to confidence and clear thinking.
Try hard not to get overly aggressive and resort to character attacks on anyone, whether they be opponents or political figures, except when it may be considered a direct piece of evidence to an end (for example, X does immoral things, voters don't like immoral things, so X won't get elected to Y).

Courtesy, especially professional courtesy between one another, is expected of competitors.

No personal attacks to anyone, whether they're in the room or not. At most, criticize individual arguments.

The more organized you are, the more likely I am to vote the way you expect.

If you speak so fast that I start missing things, I will not expect your opponent to have caught the small things.

I'm generally a traditional judge.

I can follow whatever philosophy you throw out there, but if it doesn't matter who wins the framework debate, just say so and feel free to ignore it.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

I have more experience as a speech judge, so I prefer clear arguments that are communicated effectively. Spreading is likely to cause me to lose track of the argument and is discouraged. I value impacts, clarity, and evidence.

I am a civil litigation attorney who appeared in state and federal courts for over 20 years, and have sat as an arbitrator, judge pro tempore or settlement master for Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I did not participate in debate when I was in school but believe I can be a fair and impartial judge. I have judged a few rounds of parliamentary debate since 2021.