Your job is to persuade me, and that requires effective communication. I strongly disfavor spreading, pressured speech, and fast-paced speaking characteristic of the progressive debate style.

You know your arguments. Put the computer down and speak to me like a normal person. Do not read your case to me. Make eye contact. Educate me on your worldview using the speaking style you would with a real person and persuade me!

This is my first year judging as an LD parent judge. Do not spread or excessively use jargon. Please go slow, give voters, signpost, and weigh. I value well reasoned and logically sound arguments.

I am a parent judge with experience as a speaker. By training and experience, I am a forensic psychologist (broadly, a professional who studies the interaction of the law and psychology). I value the ability to look on both sides of an argument and the ability to present information in a logical manner, using evidence and research to support opinions and guide the flow of a speech or debate. I prefer the strategic and relevant use of facts and research and am less impressed with being flooded with facts and research. In speeches, I benefit from an introduction that provides guidance as to what to expect and a conclusion that ties it together.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.