Last changed on
Thu March 15, 2018 at 9:39 PM EDT
BACKGROUND: From 1988-1992 I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at a reasonably successful level. I LOVED it and still do personally prefer it to other types of debate. That said, I respect all forms of debate and try to honor the essence of the form when judging any debate. I have been out of the Debate world since 1992 until now, as new coach in 2016-2017. During my two years as coach, I have been judging Policy often. I think I'm really starting to get it. The plus side of me being somewhat new to Policy is I don't come with the usual biases/preferences as a more experienced judge who competed in Policy might. I have taught Literature and Writing for 17 years as of this moment, and I write and edit fiction.
GENERAL PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa. I won't do the thinking for you, for the most part. I like depth of knowledge on the topic. You should be reading up on your topic, not just finding evidence cards. I want plenty of clash. I want solid reasoning and analysis. Explain your arguments.
STYLISTIC PREFERENCES: You don’t have to be nice, but you should always be respectful. I’m not terribly fond of the overuse of debate jargon and I find that it can supplant reason. I always prefer reason in that case. And by that I do mean overuse. One should be able to call things what they are. Label and articulate the labels of the parts of your case. Use those labels in your following speeches. I like a good debate where you take on the resolution and defend that position and am less impressed with trying to side-step or avoid clash.
SPEED: Not personally a fan because I love good rhetorical style and believe that words matter, but I can follow you if you articulate and slow down on the important points. I find I’m less hindered in understanding by speed than I am by poor articulation and enunciation.
KRITIKS: Sure, if well-argued and not frivolous.
KRITIKAL AFFS: Sure, but same as above.
THEORY: Yep. Also same as above.
TOPICALITY: Also same as above.
COUNTERPLANS: And again. I’m open to different kinds of arguments, except solvency arguments in LD (that annoys me unless you argue why it’s appropriate--it’s not a given). It’s not so much the type of argument that matters, it’s HOW YOU CONVINCE ME IT MATTERS. You have to do that work.
SPEAKER POINTS: Yes, I give 30s. Good rhetorical and style and attitude matter.
CROSS-EXAMINATION: I don’t flow CX, so you need to bring it up in your speech if you want me to flow it and I’m not a fan of “flex” CX.
FLASHING/SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Arrive prepared with paper copies or be seamless with your technology. I am annoyed when time is lost because lost because of technology glitches.
UNDERVIEWS/OVERVIEWS/OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS: Sure, but be quick about it.
DISCLOSURES: I will not disclose unless I am instructed by the tournament to. I think mystery about how you’re doing is a good thing.
