I have coached debate for close to a decade, so I judge all styles. My background is in the humanities, and I teach philosophy at the high school and collegiate level. In this paradigm, I will list my preferences in order of importance:

1. Evidence (timely and well-sourced)

2. Logical connections between evidence and arguments

3. Ability to adjust in-round to what is happening and strategically and effectively countering the opposing side

4. Solvency

I rarely award wins on topicality. I am fine with kritiks and spreading, as long as I can see what you are reading. If you don't seem to understand your own argument, you will almost always lose when I am judging you. I assess this in terms of how you explain your argument in cross-ex in your own words and in your correct pronunciation and use of jargon and philosophical terminology.

I did 4 years of policy in high school and one year in college. I also did Congress, HI, Duo, Oral Interp of Lit, and both Domestic and Foreign Extemp in high school. I have coached speech, policy, and LD for 3 years in Virginia.

In debate, I enjoy a fast clip, but cannot keep up with a super-fast round the way I once could. Think a 7 on a 1-10 scale. I love a good T debate. I will listen to kritiks, but prefer to keep things on a policy level.

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points. (I am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporaneous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

I competed on the national policy debate circuit for four years at Thomas Jefferson HSST ('19). Now, I coach middle school public forum debate and middle school parliamentary debate. I love debate: it's the single most impactful activity I've done, and I will give you my 100% as a judge.

WACFL Metrofinals 2024

Here's some feedback I find myself regularly giving debaters at WACFL.

1. Engage with your opponents' arguments directly. A good way to do this is: "They say XYZ. But, actually,
2. Respond to all of your opponent's arguments, especially in the constructive speeches. If the 1NC has a Politics DA and a Wages DA, the 2AC should refute both the the Politics DA and the Wages DA. If you "drop an argument" (don't respond to an opponent's argument), the round becomes much more difficult for you to win.
3. Compare your evidence to your opponents'. If you have evidence saying one thing and your opponent has evidence saying the opposite, tell me why I should believe yours. Here are some ways to compare evidence: recency, author qualifications, rigor of research, relevance of research.
4. Do impact calculus. You probably won't win every impact. If you win one impact and your opponents win another, explain why your impact is more important. Let's say that the NEG wins that their Politics DA will lead to war, and the AFF wins that the 1AC plan will stave off an economic recession. Which of those impacts is more important? Here are some ways to compare impacts: magnitude, timeframe, probability
5. Give off time roadmaps. Your roadmap should be a list of the high-level arguments you will be addressing, in the order you are addressing them. A sample 2AC roadmap might be: "Contention 1, Contention 2, Wages DA, Politics DA." These make it substantially easier to follow along with your speech.
6. Flow the debate. Every round is unique, and the speech docs you use in another round may not be applicable to this one. Flowing (ideally on paper) is essential.
7. CP's should have a net benefit. If you are running/refuting a CP, check this out: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/counterplans.html
8. If you are running/refuting a DA, check this out: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html

Top Level

Please do not read cards that are powertagged, lack warrants, or are underhighlighted to the point where you are not reading the warrants. If you see your opponents doing this, call it out during your speeches: I'm 100% willing to throw out "evidence" that doesn't say what the tagline claims it does.

Relatedly, smart analytics are fantastic and will easily overcome a barrage of subpar cards.

Spreading is fine, but slow down on tags and speak clearly. I'll say "clear" once if I can't understand you. After that, if I look lost, it's because I am. Please slow down.

I have little experience with the topic – if an acronym or complex policy change is going to be a big focus of the debate, please explain it early on in the round.

Run what you’re best at and prioritize technical execution: do line-by-line, number your arguments, and give organized speeches. No matter the type of argument, good debate is good debate.

Arguments can have zero risk.

Strategic Affs/Negative Strategy

The most strategic affirmatives are both sufficient and necessary to solve the impacts of the 1AC. Most 1ACs are not both sufficient and necessary, and negative teams should use that to their advantage.

If the 1AC can’t solve its own impacts, then is voting AFF really try-or-die?

If the 1AC isn’t the only way to solve its impacts, then can an advantage counterplan solve instead?

Case debate is underrated: I'm happy to give a 1AC that's predicated on suspect internal link chains zero risk if you make (and win) that argument.

K Affs vs. Framework

Negative teams are best positioned going for limits/fairness. Why does the affirmative’s model of debate wreck limits/fairness, and why is that bad? TVAs and switch-side are useful arguments for subsuming affirmative offense.

Affirmative teams are best positioned going for a counter-interpretation. Why is the affirmative’s model of debate better than the negative’s? Counter-define words in the resolution to explain why your counter-interpretation is predictable, maintains limits, and includes a role for the negative to subsume negative offense.

Ks

I prefer Ks with specific links to the 1AC and clear explanations of the alt. If you are reading a K about how the world is structured, a brief overview in the block would be great. The rest of the debating should be done on the line-by-line.

DAs

Specific links are best. Try to supplement the impact debate with turns case arguments, whether carded or analytical.

CPs

I prefer CPs that are functionally and textually competitive, but I know that sometimes Process CPs are the only option. Be ready for a theory debate.

Misc.

Please time your own speeches.

Prep time ends once the email has been sent.