Egan,+Robert

As far as experience goes, I debated 4 years in high school (Policy and LD) and then 4 years at the University of Chicago for their Parli debate team. I've done some contract coaching/teaching for a couple of debate programs as well.

My judging philosophy is pretty uncomplicated. You can run what you like in LD or Policy as long as at the end of the round, there is a coherent picture of intellectual competition between the two sides. I view debate as a reasonably complicated game with rules that can be bent and manipulated to a certain degree. Stylistically, speed is not a problem for me, but I appreciate when it is used for functional reasons and not purposeless ones. Concise, convincing speech is much more difficult and is awarded for it. I view each speech as a series of logical moves, so keep that in mind when extending/impacting, etc.

LD: I rely on the standards debate and how well arguments are weighed through impacts. However, I have an extremely broad notion of what constitutes a standard. Theory is acceptable, K's are much less convincing so winning on one is much more difficult with me in LD.

Policy: I rarely vote on topicality unless it is absurd. Counter-plans tend to lead to better rounds. K's are acceptable.