LD is first and foremost a debate based on philosophy. It is not policy.  Value and criterion are more than just buzzwords at the opening of the speech. Contentions should link back to the value and should be rooted in that philosophy. Good communication is a part of LD. Give vocal emphasis to the parts of your speech your want me to pay attention to. Tag your contentions clearly. Speak slowly enough that I can absorb the argument thoughtfully.

LD conventions and decorum matter. Expect to stand during speeches and cross-examinations. Dress appropriately. Wait until everyone is ready before speaking. Address the judge during cross-examination. Be respectful and attentive to your opponent. If you have scorn for their arguments, choke it down. Ignoring LD conventions shows a lack of respect for everyone in the room, and the activity itself.

I expect good coverage, though I will not vote on unrefuted arguments if they don't come up in the round.

I am wary of intimidation techniques used on opponents. You should win the round on the strength of your arguments, not how much you are able to freak out your opponent.

I prefer to vote on which value structure is better upheld. 

I don't respond well to quizzes about how much LD jargon I know. Be clear, be nice, be respectful.

Reading a card/evidence is not an argument. Saying "cross-apply" is not an argument. I will not fill in analysis for you.

I expect crystallization (clear voters) at the end of a round.

I come from a background of competing in LD and Congress, but have experience judging IEs (extemp, OI, declamation, DI/HI, OO), in addition to debate events (Parli, LD, PFD).

For LD, I don't mind speed (within moderation), but ask that you are courteous and do not spread your opponent out of the round; if you spread your opponent out of the round, I will automatically drop you. I like to see a good values-based debate, since this is the fundamental nature of the event. Arguments over statistics will not win you a round; while they are important to support your claims, this is not the type of clash I want to see. When you make an assertion, tell me the source for that assertion, and why I should care (CWI structure). Your clash should be logical and flow smoothly. Roadmaps are important so I can follow where you're going. In 1NR and 2AR, give me clear voting issues to summarize the round. Be kind to one another; at the end of the day, this is meant to be fun. Do not be rude to your opponent during c-x or in rebuttal speeches. There IS a way to respectfully disagree. Do NOT go over time. When I call time, wrap up. Prep time will be called out in 30 second increments.

For PFD, the same paradigms for LD apply here, with the natural exception of the values-based debate. Present your arguments clearly and be respectful of each other during crossfire. Follow the CWI structure. Roadmap! And please tell me why your side wins in your final focus.

For Congress, PO, I will be keeping note of how orderly you maintain your chamber. Speakers, do NOT abuse the grace period. Be respectful of your fellow competitors. If you wish to preface, be sure to ask the PO for permission before you do so. I factor in overall activity in the chamber, so your score will be given additional weight if you are frequently asking questions of other speakers when able to do so. If the debate is single-sided, please try to speak on the opposite side to keep the debate going. Rehash will be noted and frowned upon. I like to see good clash, so make sure to keep track of other speakers and what they have said before you. Reference them and counter what they say, or show your support for points that they have made, while advancing the debate with new arguments. Be sure to speak clearly; while Congress is more akin to debate, there is an element of speech-like articulation that is required to effectively get your point across.

I am a new judge. I will evaluate who best persuades me of the truth of their position. I do not prefer a fast debate.

I coached at Danville High School (PA) from 2012-2019 (I stepped away from coaching when my wife and I had our first child in June 2019 so that I could have more family time). In high school, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and dabbled a handful of times in Public Forum Debate (referred to as Ted Turner Debate at the time). Because of my background in speech, delivery remains an important factor in my decision insofar as I must be able to understand the arguments that you are presenting to flow them. In other words, do NOT spread! To me, spreading is antithetical to effective communication, which is ultimately the reason we are here - to communicate arguments for or against a proposed resolution.

I subscribe to the school of thought that Public Forum is intended to be a lay person's debate in that anybody, regardless of their background knowledge on the subject matter or debate experience, should be able to sit-in on a round and follow each side's argumentation. As it was once explained to me, your grandmother should be able to listen to your case/speech and understand what you are saying.

An effective argument consists of three key components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact (STATE It, SUPPORT It, EXPLAIN It). An emphasis on any one of these facets at the exclusion of the others results is an incomplete argument. You can't win a debate with incomplete arguments! I say all this because over the 7.5 years I spent coaching, I witnessed a shift in emphasis away from holistic argumentation to an over-reliance upon evidence (warrants). Sure, evidence is important, but far too many debates that I've judged have devolved into a clash over whose evidence is superior or who has provided a greater quantity (the old "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" approach). As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once claimed, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Use evidence to support your contentions and your rebuttals, but also provide an explanation (impact) as to how it links back into the bigger picture argument that you are trying to make. Logic can be just as effective a tool in a debate as qualitative and quantitative evidence.

A few other logistics for the round:

- "Off-time road-maps" are fine, but should be brief.
- You may time yourself, but my timer is the official time piece for the round.
- Individual crossfires should be standing. Grand crossfire can be seated or standing (debaters' discretion).
- I will defer to the NSDA Debate Evidence Rules for PF and LD unless tournament/league rules state otherwise.

In debate, please ensure that I can understand the words you are speaking. If you are speaking too rapidly for me to understand you, I will ask you to slow down. If you continue to be difficult to understand, that hurts your chances of winning the round, as I won't give you credit for arguments you make, but I cannot decipher. If you're speaking rapidly and your diction is sharp, all is well. Slurring or mumbling hurt you.

To the degree to which it is possible, I strive for mens rea. I will judge the round based on what is actually said in the round. I may comment on lost opportunities, but the decision comes from the arguments presented, not from anything I fill in from my own experience.

Team coach and experienced judge. My strengths lie with judging speech, but I am still a competent debate judge. I am fine with any rate of speech. I strongly prefer organized arguments backed with clear and cited evidence. I do prefer the use of off-time roadmaps to maintain my own flow. I am more likely to give you the round based on your ability to find and explicitly point out flaws in your opponent’s case/arguments than on the basis of an assertion that your case is simply better. I am very good at picking up on dropped arguments/flow and bad evidence, but will not count it against your opponent unless you specifically point it out yourself, or there are very egregious errors. I am also critical about use of time, and if a round is close, I will be more likely to grant the win to the competitor who had fuller and more effective use of time.