Yes to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
!If you're using a bunch of acronyms don't assume I know what you mean! Don't start your speeches top speed. Slow down a little when reading blocks if you want me to know what you're saying (especially on theory and framework args). Otherwise I'm fine with speed.
I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college. I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.
tech > truth, but your arguments need to be extended with warrants and impacts to count as technical wins. nuance still matters.
While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are new to me. Might be skeptical if you're a tricks debater, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.
I have a decently high threshold for theory- I will vote on it if it's not answered or not answered properly, but I don't want to vote on it. I'd rather see a debate with good content clash than theory. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. Theory should have a clear tangible impact. Fairness counts, but please quantify the specific violation in the round. I'm more persuaded by theory if it's specific to other args in the round, ex. condo might make sense if there is 5 off, but if it's like 2 off reading condo seems more like a gimmick to avoid clash then a meaningful debate about time skew
Framework: I mostly read ks as a debater, but also went for framework a lot- I think that makes me more sympathetic to negs reading framework, and not the other way around. I have voted on either side in clash debates. I'm starting to be persuaded that fairness is an impact, but I much prefer education impacts. Ks are allowed on the neg, and I'm unlikely to vote on framework if you read it as the aff.
Ks: Make your link specific to the aff. Be specific about how your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.
Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad, emphasis on the *good*. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.
Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students.. it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.