Heaps,+Shelly

I debated for four years Policy in High School and 4 years of CEDA debate in college. I have been coaching policy and LD for 9 years at Owasso High School and Bishop Kelley high school.

I am primarliy what you would call a "stock issues" judge. I like to see alot of clash on the flow.

I have been known to vote on T, but it must be well developed. I do not like effects- or extra-topicality. It should have clear standards and violations.

DA impact scenarios that always end in nuclear war are not impressive to me. I like to see impact calculus, especially in later speeches.

I prefer dispositional counterplans over conditional, but I will vote on a conditional CP if given no other choice.

Kritikal arguments, including affirmatives, need to be very well explained, make sense, and not set up a debate round without any clash. Do not assume I know what you are talking about.

I prefer closed CX, because a good portion of the debaters I have judged do not know how to handle an open CX.

In my judging experience, I have not found a round that was won or lost soley on theory. I would much rather hear more substantive arguments.

Clarity is key. Speed is not a problem, assuming I can understand you. And, assuming you know what the word "clear" means.

I prefer civil debates over mean/angry debates. Everyone needs to respect each other.

I typically do not disclose after the round. I write alot on the ballot.

On any position, I want the debaters to make it clear why and how they are winning that position.

I do not like arguments that are "time sucks". I have a tendency to vote against teams who do that.

I love debate and want to see the activity continue to grow and change the lives of those who are fortunate enough to be a part of it.