Affiliation: Whitefish Bay High School.

I have judged High School Forensics for 5 years and this is my third year judging debate. My background is in Fine Arts and I spent 20 years developing interpretive programs and educational materials for the Milwaukee Art Museum.

My Values: In LD I look for clearly stated positions that are supported by well researched facts. I like logical arguments.

Arguments: I am open to any form of argument as long as it is developed in a logical manner. I am a tabula rasa judge in that I let the debaters make their points, while I leave my knowledge outside the room.

Value/Criterion: I am not very interested in the values debate. It is more important that there is evidence to support the selection of a particular value. I want the speaker to know their warrants and present it in a manner that makes me believe their commitment to what they are stating.

Speaking style: Clear concise language that is direct, to the point and void of jargon is much appreciated. I don't know a lot about Theories and other argument styles, so make sure to run structured cases with clear outlines and signposting.

Important Elements: I look to the first questioning period as the moment for each side to demonstrate their understanding of the entire issue and their opportunity to suggest flaws in the other side's position.

Etiquette: I expect civility between competitors and dislike sarcasm and superior attitudes. Speedy delivery often seems a mean to showcase the speaker and not often obscures the content of what is being said.

Voters: I'm not so interested in seeing an appeal to the judge on how I should vote, but more of a crystallization of the round.