Currently head coach at Nicolet High School (2009-present) Assistant coach NHS 2008, frequent policy judge since 2007, LD judge prior, parli debater in college (very bad). My undergrad degree is in philosophy, so I am conversant with the mainstream of Western philosophy.

That said, I expect an LD round to include strong and careful analysis of your standards and criteria. I tend to prefer arguments made and carried through by the debaters to card references, especially if the card's argument is somewhat difficult or subtle. You get points for nuance and careful distinctions. Since I think formal judging philosophies can be less helpful than a knowledge of the actual biases of the person you're reading about, I'll say that I believe that David Hume was probably the greatest thinker we've had, and tend to have strong sympathy for the Anglo-American analytic tradition and the American pragmatist tradition in philosophy. I'm also extremely fond of classical philosophy. This doesn't mean I won't listen to arguments that come from other traditions, nor that I am un-acquainted with them. I'll listen to the arguments you're making, but I think it's important to tell you where I'm coming from.

In a similar vein, on the November/December topic, I am also conversant with most of the policy arguments about this topic, and have worked in the criminal justice system as well as in AODA treatment. You probably shouldn't pref me if your arguments about this topic rely on caricatures of the reality of our situation in this country. That said, I have considerable personal sympathy for both sides in this particular debate, and probably have fewer fixed opinions than many without my experience in the field.

In terms of technical issues, I've judged a lot of policy recently, and so I have no real problem with speed or with theory arguments. Standard caveats apply, however-if I tell you to clear it up, clear it up, and impact your theory args-I'm not the judge for you if you want to claim that one drop on a 20-point theory block is an automatic win, without any other work. I tend to prefer rounds that end up focussing on a smaller number of key issues, and will be unimpressed with claims that failure to address core issues can be overcome with a panoply f technical wins on other flows.