Updated 1-22-2026

College debate philosophy on the top, HS debate and college/HS speech philosophies on the bottom.

Background and context for how I evaluate arguments

I competed in speech and debate at the college level from 2010-2014. My primary debate event was NPDA, but I also competed in some LD and attended policy camp and workshops. My favorite things to run were performance-based critical arguments (e.g., hip-hop), critical race theory, feminist criticism, queer theory-based arguments, but I mostly debated plan-based cases in NPDA due to partner preference. I coached IEs and some NPDA at CSU Long Beach from 2014-2016. I assisted with public debates for three years as a doctoral student at Pitt. I have been the faculty director of the William Pitt Debating Union since FA 2023.

I am also a scholar on topics like law, media, identity, and education. My dozens of conference presentations and numerous publications include works that suggest actionable alternative paradigms or polices for lawmakers and legal professionals, as well as critical examinations on cultural objects, educational practices, and legal texts from a range of paradigms (disability studies, settler colonial studies, feminism, queer and trans theories, anti-Blackness/Afro-Pessimism, etc.). My orientation to research increasingly affects how I judge debate rounds, and I am becoming decreasingly comfortable with normative/traditional policy debate modes of argumentation for being a poor example of policy discussion.

I've grown skeptical of traditional policy debate's evidentiary practices. Arguments that would fail as academic essays that rely on fallacies, decontextualized evidence, and implausible causal chains will receive heightened scrutiny from me. I find hyperbolic terminal impacts and try or die logic built on strings of unsupported claims unpersuasive. While substantive policy discussions and scholarship surround impact areas like nuclear war and environmental collapse, they are not done so in the loose fashion of some intercollegiate debates.

While these issues are also true for some critical debate as well, I find critical arguments on the affirmative and negative (including affs that have metaphorical interpretations of resolutions) to paradoxically be the ones most grounded in reality. Critical arguments that have reasonable interpretations of their literature bases, that are properly rooted in the history of the subject or in debate, and that have well-thought alternatives (whether they be actions, epistemologies, or performances) are often the most believable. I do, however, strongly disfavor K arguments that grossly misconstrue the claims of authors cited or that do not adequately connect their advocacy to the level or system of problems they attempt to resolve.

I will judge based on instructions given in round. This paradigm indicates my thresholds for reasonability, not automatic decisions.

I do not need content warnings for sensitive topics, but you should always check with your opponent, read other judges paradigms for elimination rounds, and consider providing them if there is an audience.

2025-26 Coaching Context

This year, most of my coaching time is dedicated to individual events, and most of my job is administrative or focused on public debate. While I served on the NFA-LD committee last year and participated in summer topic meetings, your round may be my first exposure to specific topical issues, so assume I know nothing about Arctic/Antarctic politics, and especially little about your case or any related topic-specific jargon.

Affs

All affs need to honestly reflect the evidence used. All affs (traditional or critical) also should probably define the role of the ballot and have some sort of framework because I do not default to a policy-maker mindset in rounds.

I am open to traditional/policy affs, but please see the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs in the section above: Background and context for how I evaluate arguments. I do not default to traditional cases as the only proper cases, and I will be very open to challenges on probability/reasonability claims if the arguments are hyperbolic or misconstrue evidence.

I am open to critical affirmatives, including planless affirmatives, if there is some substantive link to the resolution. Please see the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs in the section above: Background and context for how I evaluate arguments.

Refutation

I need students to name the arguments to which people are responding when refuting their opponents. Don't just say "on case," "on advantage one," "on the K," "on the disad," etc., and then read a million cards or blocks with no signposting or signaling. Let me know which specific aspect of the argument, or which card, or which claim you are responding to, otherwise I will get lost. Remember that most guides to 4/5 step refutation put "signaling" or "Referencing" as the very first component (identifying the claim you are answering). Most public speaking texts explain that signposting, transitioning, and/or signaling are fundamental aspects of public speaking to reduce the cognitive load for your audience. These elements of reasoning and public speaking should be in your speeches. If you are refuting a specific card from your opponent, guide me to that card then refute; if you are turning the impact, then tell me the impact you are turning to on the sheet.

Evidence

I prefer complete citations and will consider evidence indictments. When I'm familiar with sources being misrepresented, I'll factor that into evaluation. Removing modifiers to boost implausible claims weakens your credibility.

Speed

Conversational delivery is strongly preferred. I can handle moderate speed but am not a fan of spreading. If any participant requires slower delivery for access reasons, all debaters must comply.

Advantages/Disadvantages

I need clear explanation of how advantages/disadvantages access their impacts and explicit impact calculus in rebuttals. The affirmative bears a strong burden to demonstrate propensity to solve at the link level. If affirmative links are weak, the negative's threshold is correspondingly lower.

I prefer specific over generic evidence and require believable link stories between policy advocacy and impacts.

Counterplans

All counterplan types are acceptable. The negative must defend theoretical legitimacy when challenged and explain clearly how the counterplan avoids disadvantages or gains unique benefits.

State conditionality (unconditional/conditional/dispositional) upfront. Losing a counterplan is not an RVI unless declared unconditional. Only the affirmative has a prima facie burden to prove their case.

Kritiks and Framework

I'm receptive to kritik debate but need philosophical premises explained clearly. Every scholar interprets critical theorists differently. Provide the specific thesis or "common knowledge" framing you want me to use, even in tags or overviews, so I'm not imposing my interpretation.

All criticisms need to have a 1) strong link story to the specific thing being critiqued (the specific plan or take on the resolution, the specific language used in round, the specific aspects of intercollegiate debate being criticized, etc.; 2) a clearly defined alternative; and 3) an impact.

Avoid convoluted alternatives or explain them concretely. If advocating deconstructive textual activism, define it, show how your kritik functions as such, and explain my role accessing it or how the ballot is key to the alternatives success. I take alternatives literally within your argumentative context, so please ensure they're enactable.

Topicality

I value definitional debates using contextually relevant legal, industry, or scholarly sources rather than decontextualized dictionary definitions. I'm less receptive to topicality as strategic exclusion against less experienced debaters.

For metaphorical resolution interpretations, be upfront about that approach. T-USFG with fairness/education standards isn't the best initial response. Two decades post-Louisville Project, we have extensive scholarship documenting debate's exclusionary practices and how we lose so much education on systemic issues and contextual factors when we ignore these other modes of inquiry. There are better options: engage the substantive kritik arguments, or make a non-exclusionary framework argument, or find flaws in the alternative, or make a T argument that doesnt require all debaters to be pretend policy makers through a singular type of debate performance to participate.

Cross Examination

I flow cross-examination but only consider it when explicitly referenced in speeches ("In cross-ex they said [X], which means [Y]"). Antagonism, hostility, or aggression during cross-ex will not serve you well. Be kind.

Rebuttals

Provide judge instructions for evaluation: impact calculus, framework/theory resolution, and comparative analysis. The strongest rebuttals collapse strategically rather than attempting to extend everything.

High School Debate (CX/Public Forum/LD)
Strike me if running tricks.

Keep CX/Cross Fire professional. Back-and-forth arguments or shouting matches will hurt your points and may become an independent reason for me to vote against you. This paradigm is the only warning you get because we all should know how to treat each other respectfully. Ask questions, answer questions, move forward.

Evidence standards: Arguments must include complete source information. Transparent sourcing is fundamental to public and academic argumentation. Personal experience arguments are acceptable, but any data or scholarship references require proper citation.

On kritiks: If running or answering kritiks, familiarize yourself with their history and function in debate. Substantial scholarship exists on this, don't make broad assumptions about kritiks' effects without engaging that literature.

College and HS Speech
Impromptu
I have no preference for impromptu format (3x1, 2x2 with or without a lens of interpretation, etc.).

For senior/open impromptu, I strongly dislike personal examples and examples that are incredibly mainstream (Harry Potter, Twilight, MLK, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks) unless the examples are taking in a very unique and nuanced direction.

I appreciate clear, obvious interpretations of quotations and I do not like examples that are convoluted.

I will rank you incredibly low if you are canning your speech.

Extemp

Nuance is great, but too often speakers try to make a simple subject much too complicated for a 7 minute speech. Remember, your judge is enduring a heavy cognitive load. A good public speaker should try to simplify the complex, not overcomplicate the simple.

Humor, emotion, etc., are all still relevant in extemp. I am fine with direct, matter-of-fact delivery, but remember that a well-rounded speaker utilizes all forms of rhetorical appeals and strategies.

Platforms and Interps
I am less picky about regional norms/expectations than a lot of other judges. I do not care if you move a lot in prose or stay planted in DI, if your persuasion is structured as problem/cause/solution, cause/effects/solution, three points of refutation, or some other way. I care about the substance of your performance/speech, the naturalness and fluidity of your gestures, how well you have memorized your piece, and if it clearly well rehearsed. I am also incredibly open to a range of emotional tones in performances and speeches: I know the trend is to explore trauma and the dark side of life, but I will be equally open to humorous interps or less hard-hitting platform speeches.