Coaching Experience- 2 years coaching LD with Marquette University High School. I do not have any experience as a debater either in high school or in college but did participate in public speaking events when I attended college.
Judging Experience- I have judged LD at multiple tournaments in the 2014 and 2015 seasons. This will be my first year judging at the State Tournament.

I view LD primarily as a public speaking activity in which one team must persuade me through well articulated argumentation and rhetoric that their conception of the world/world view is better than and outweighs their opponents. As a result, I highly encourage the value/value criterion debate to be the focus of the rounds that I judge. Some of the best debates that I have seen this season have been debates that function around the inclusiveness (or lack thereof) of a particular value. I am persuaded by arguments that certain values and value criterion are exlusionary and often believe that it is the job of those in the debate community to ensure that the community is as open as possible.

In regards to speed and your overall delivery in round- I have a background in communications and believe that you must persuasively argue your point in front of me. If I cannot flow your argument, I will not be able to evaluate it. Although the students that I coach speak quickly, I am not the best at understanding speed reading so please slow down and emphasize explanation. Quality over quantity is crucial when debating in front of me.

In regards to kritiks and progressive arguments- I prioritize a more traditional style of LD when judging debates and, as a result, think that you should avoid reading CP and Ks in front of me especially if the function of those arguments relies on highly technical debate theory. I often find that kritik alternatives are the weakest part of the argument and think that affirmative teams should focus their responses to the K on the alternative and the link debate. In addition, I think that kritiks often rely on a very circular logic and can often be defeated without evidence.

Finally, make sure that you ask me about my paradigm before the round starts! I think that this is a game about disclosure and about judge adaptation. Please make sure that you ask me about my views on a particular issue or argument before reading it. I am very open to pre-round discussions. Also, it is the opinion of the MUHS programs that disclosure should be encouraged before LD debates so if you have read an affirmative argument before, you should expect to have to disclose these arguments to the negative team.