Last changed on
Mon February 18, 2019 at 6:52 PM EDT
I debated 4 years for Davis High School and have been coaching for the Boston Debate League since 2017. My experience was mostly with traditional, yet flow, LD and Parli.
I'll vote anything but you have to explain it well and (almost certainly) not at your top speed. I will give you three chances to be intelligible: I'll say "clear" once and "slow" once, at which point I will no longer say anything and flow only what I am able to decipher.
My objective is to be as tabula rasa as possible, so I establish the truth of the round entirely on what is presented in the debate. In my view this has two practical implications for you (above and beyond telling you that I'm flow): 1. assertions made in constructive speeches will be evaluated as true if uncontested. 2. ideally you would warrant and debate everything related to the debate from first principles, including what impacts matter, because I will not assume anything about whats good/bad/true/etc. This second point may seem to contradict the first (why am I telling you to warrant everything if I'll grant you claims without warrants?) but the logic is simply that while warranted arguments are infinitely superior to unwarranted claims, I prefer to accept unwarranted claims that teams make (or tacitly accent to by not responding) rather than intervene and perform analysis of the truth that isnt made in round.
I expect framework debate and weighing. It's imperative that you impact to the framework chosen (so, for example, if the round is util, societal welfare, net benefits, or anything like that ALL I care about is welfare analysis).
I like creative positions, not a fan of just doing "the meta". I also dont really know the trends so dont expect me to know the debate world terms for stuff. These things tend to make me less favorable to techy or tricks debaters but it's not because I have an issue with the arguments themselves.
I view speaks as a way to noncompetitively assess debaters, so I dont assign them based on how well you speak or anything. Instead it will reflect how I feel about your case, strategy, etc.
Handle time, evidence, prep, etc amongst yourselves. But taking a bunch of time to sort through evidence is boring and bad for the tournament, so be quick about it.
I call for cards to determine if theres misrepresented evidence or to figure out exactly what the argument made in the round was. I do NOT call for evidence to do my own analysis of what's true--you should debate the validity of your definitions, facts, whatever in the round and I will evaluate it on that basis alone.
For Parli:
Tag teaming is fine. Dont abuse the grace periods. Give me the resolution before the round. In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume neg.
For LD:
I won't vote on anything not present in the 1AR for aff or the 1NC/R for neg. Defense you intend to use should be present in these speeches too unless it only makes sense in response to a later speech.
I'm pretty committed to evaluating Framework and then Substance under the winning framework. This doesn't necessary imply traditional debate if you want to run some non-traditional frameworks or substance arguments, just that I will still resolve the round in that order.
In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume for the affirmative.
For PF:
I won't vote on anything not present in summary. Uncontested defense can be used in final focus even if not extended in summary. In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume for the first speaking team.
