TL:DR - I will probably end up voting for whoever does better impact calc and better explains the material implications of what they're saying + don't go too fast. Also I really really hate tricks

I want comprehensive, understandable overviews in every rebuttal. Explain to me what the material implications of your case are - tell me what it looks like for me post-fiat. Also, I'd prefer in the 2nr you went for one, well developed strategy - I can appreciate bold, strategic decisions.

Speed: Persuasive, understandable communication is key. I probably can't understand you if you're spreading because I never did debate myself and haven't been judging for too long. Ultimately, you do you, but at least slow down for your taglines or I just can't keep up and your speaks will reflect that.

Argument preferences:

I'm always gonna be down for a good DA or CP debate - that's probably what you're going to want to do in front of me if you don't want to lose me.

- K Affs - just at least try to make an effort to sound like your topical. I'm probably not going to vote on "topicality is violent" arguments.

- K - I'm definitely not a good judge to go for any high theory K in front of because I almost definitely haven't read any of the same lit you have. That being said, if you explain the material implications of your K and what the alt looks like for the real world - I'll probably vote for it.

- T - win it and I'll vote for it. If you explain the violation well and impact it out and it seems believable, I'll probably vote for it. That being said, fairness is not an impact - it is an internal link to either structural fairness or procedural fairness.

- Theory - just don't be frivolous please, I'm probably not gonna vote on spikes just b/c they're dropped - seems pretty abusive to me.

I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.

Email chain: rhetorrao@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

I am most comfortable with a traditional policy-like strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.

I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.

Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.

Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.

I enjoyed my high school career as a policy debater. Later, I served as a coach and a judge over the course of the twenty-five years that I have been an educator. I am also a mother to a teen, so I appreciate the hard work that debaters dedicate to their craft.