I debated policy in high school and in college in from 1988-1994. I have coached policy, LD, public forum and now Congressional debate. Because of my policy roots substantiating your argument with evidence and refutation are important to debate. I fundamentally see Congressional debate as debate not as another form of extemp.

Congress: I am primarily a LD judge. This means that I want to see clash and good questions, not just softballs to your own team or side. I will drop round points to a 1 for anything -ic or -ist (ie homophobic, transphobic, racist etc). I will probably judge 50/50 (1-3 points presentation and 1-3 for content).

Experience: I debated a year of LD, and half a year each of PF and Congress. I student managed for my team the last two years of high school, so I stayed within the community and the brain sphere, and then after graduation came back to coach for Lakeville. I primarily have coached Novice LD so please be kind when running theory and more advanced stuff, and make it clear.

Give me reasons to vote for you but don't assume you have won arguments just because you said them.

I am fine with a bit of speed, but be clear and preferably don't spread.

Sign post, sign post, sign post!

Give me extensions and drops and please make them clean.

Most importantly: Be professional and be respectful.

I absolutely do not need your camera to be on.

I judge mainly based on the following three criteria:

1.) argumentation/debate: bringing up new arguments and addressing other debaters in the chamber

2.) participation: speaking and questioning frequently

3.) speeches: evidence and justification for arguments

Last Updated:1/18/2025

Pronouns: They/Them

Clash is defined as: when a debater directly addresses and refutes another debater's argument. Clashing is a central factor in debate, and if a debater fails to clash with major points, they will lose the debate.

Background:

• Competed for 6 years: 4.5 in LD and 1.5 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 4 years. Coaching for one year.

Overview:

• Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. Don't speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it.

Congress:

• The only pre-written speech in a congress round should be the author. It is noted if any after the author is pre-written.
• This is a DEBATE event. Rebuttals, crystals, and *good* authors are a skill. Give different types of speeches. Constructives are essential for a round to exist but I keep track if those are the only speeches you are giving.
• I reward people who impact and weigh well. I drop people who don't have any sources or do not have any impacts to what they are saying.
• There should be no reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I promise you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for what you need to personally work on in this activity.
• I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
• I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
• Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. The topics we are discussing may personally impact the people in the room with you. Be aware of what you are saying and the impact it can leave on others when leaving the round.

Notes for PO's:

• You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform.
• POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position. Auto 9 in my books. Same with sharing your PO sheet with the chamber.
• The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you" is a time waster

LD Overview:

• There is a trend this year where no one reads paradigms. These aren't suggestions. I cannot flow spreading, I hate K's. When you do not read paradigms, you are letting yourself be set up for failure.
• As defined by the NSDA, LD is a mix of philosophy and argumentation. Nothing makes me more upset then when the neg gets up and concedes to framework and then never brings it up again. Your impacts are meaningless without framework, your weighing is meaningless without framework. You have nothing when we do not frame the round.

LD:

• No K's
• No spreading. I define spreading as if you are talking so fast you have to take a giant sharp intake of air to then continue speaking fast and/or you are completely out of breath at the end of your speech and are gasping for air. You should be able to speak at a pace accessible to judges and your opponents. In addition, most people do not know how to enunciate when speaking fast and I cannot understand if you are slurring your words together. If you read this and still decide to spread, then it is not on me if I miss critical offense; as a debater, you should be able to change your strategy based on your judge.
• I do not mind jargon or technical language but if you are being inaccessible to your opponent that is unfair to them and will reflect on you.
• Voters/Weighing/Framework is the only thing that matters to me. The only time I would vote off of a singular argument is if no one weighed or debated framework (which we have bigger problems then).

General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points and/or ranking will reflect it.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and/or receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last.

A little about me: I was a policy debater in high school (20+ years ago). I currently run Lakeside Debate and Public Speaking School, where I am the head coach. For four years, I was the Congressional debate coach for Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools. For two years, I also taught Congress and PF for Potomac Debate Academy. I was the Head Coach at Wayzata High School for two years where I coached policy. I also coach speech (all categories), most recently at Edina High School. I've literally coached and judged it all. I also have a PhD in social ethics.

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is the minimum expectation in debate rounds. Make sure that the speech you give fits where you give it (i.e., extemping a rebuttal on the third cycle vs. reading a prepared speech in the third cycle for Congress). I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals! See below for more detailed information for events.


CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS EVERYTHING!

I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round, factoring in questions, speeches, and in-round behavior. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, fully impacted out arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

LD/POLICY/PF DEBATE
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts. I will vote on impacts, so make sure you extend them. ***Trigger warnings are not enough; you need to have a non-explicit case that you can run.***

I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori(need to be addressed prior to addressing the resolution), I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case. RFDs will not be tech heavy.

Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds

Tell me why you should get the ballot in all post-constructive speeches. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.

While I am an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies were continental philosophy, critical theory, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I welcome it in PF, too. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.

Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.

This is the single best advice I can give you if I am your judge: do not conflate ethics and morals. An ethic is a way of being in the world; it does not require morals. Morals, conversely, are principles by which one lives one’s life. While many ethics include morals as part of their structure, ethics and morals aren’t the same thing. If you’re making a moral appeal argument, you need to tell me what the morals to which you’re appealing are and why they’re important. If you’re making an ethical argument, you need to tell me what the ethical framework is that I should use. Otherwise, telling me that I have an ethical or moral obligation to vote in a particular way means nothing; you need to give me the framework or the values you want me to use to evaluate the round. When you don’t, it means that I am using my own ethical or moral framework to evaluate rounds and, because no two people have the exact same ethic (way of being in the world), it lowers the persuasiveness of your argument.

PF-Specific Preferences:
Evidence ethics matter!!! DO NOT PARAPHRASE IN FRONT OF ME. Read the actual card. It doesn't take any longer to read the card than it does to paraphrase it. There are no excuses for not reading the actual card. If you take longer than a minute to provide a card that's called, I will strike it from the flow. If the card is called and you were paraphrasing it, I reserve the right to drop you, especially if there are any discrepancies between what you said and what the source says. Critical arguments are always welcome, but make sure you can prove a violation if you’re running T or a norms violation (disclosure, trigger warning, spreading, etc).

SPEECH
I’ve coached every NSDA category and regularly judge them. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.

1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?

2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that matters.

In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny? Are you relying on racial/ethnic, gender, or other stereotypes for comedic effect? (If you do, you'll rank last!)

TRAUMA FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA IS NOT OKAY! There is no reason for the details of an assault to be included in a piece or portrayed during a performance. Trigger warnings must be delivered properly; if I am your judge and your piece needs a trigger warning, please communicate that to me prior to the start of the round. I will take care of alerting the room and allowing time and space for people to take care of themselves. Do NOT turn the trigger warning into a performative action that does not allow time and space for people to take care of themselves.

In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a clear narrative arc throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well?

In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech persuasive or is it dramatic? Does the solutions fit the problem? And in an Info round, is it an informative speech or is it persuasive? I want persuasion in OO and informative in Info.

For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete (claim, warrant, impact) or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground? Is the question closely tied to the arguments made by the student? Impact out your evidence!

3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website or the tournament website (NSDA rules are used widely, so start there).

4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk. If you’re disrespectful in a round, it will impact your ranking.

Make my ranking decisions hard for me! The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.

When I judge Congress, not only am I looking for arguments (claim/warrant/data/impact), I am looking at the quality of your presentation. Speech still applies to Debate. I look for a confident, passionate persuasive speech that asks us to affirm or negate. As a session progresses, I look to see follow up speeches that draw in other supporting Senators/Representatives, as well as refuting the opposition - including being presented more extemporaneously. If the topic makes you angry or frustrated, I want to see and hear that. If it makes you happy or satisfied, I want to see that, too. For Q&A blocks, I expect to see the level of prep that anticipates what others will ask after your speech. I look for confident, crisp answers. Thank you.

Always be respectful and polite. Debaters lacking decorum will always rank low in the rounds I judge, regardless of how well they argue. This includes but is not limited to sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Debate is a sport and should be treated as such through good sportsmanship and healthy competition. If you want feedback beyond the ballot or an unpacking of the ballot, come up to me at any tournament and ask.

For all debates, my ballots rely on logical argumentation, rhetoric, structure, and refutation. Arguments require a clear claim, warrant, and impact with unpacking of any data presented. Speaking style and flair are always secondary to the actual debate. In congressional debate, repetition of arguments does not rank well for me. Unless you are presenting new facets or argumentation on a point that has already been given in the round, restating it adds only to how well you speak and not to how well you debate. On the other hand, new and unique arguments or refutations are always appreciated.

Debate experience: Congress in HS and Parliamentary Debate (2v2 LD) at the collegiate level, as well as judging for around five years.

Congress:

-Remember this is congressional debate, not a speech event. That means I will mark down speeches that repeat what the last speaker on your side said. If your points are similar to ones mentioned before, however, show why yours goes into more depth!

-Be active in the chamber. Respond to any and all speakers whose arguments conflict with your own. The author/sponsorship in addition to first negative speeches are obviously exempt from this rule because you should be laying down the substance of your side (although I am impressed when you anticipate potential opposing arguments and show why they shouldn't be considered).

-When responding to other speakers, please be respectful and do your best to pronounce names correctly. Write ALL names down phonetically once they pronounce it so you don't have to rack your brain to remember what the name was or how to pronounce it. Also don't say "a previous representative..." that's lame.

-Don't try to be funny, it feels forced. If it's natural, it's natural, but never think you have to be funny to get me to listen to your speech!

-I do love sass and sarcasm so I will laugh in the middle of direct questioning even if nobody else does. HOWEVER, sass and sarcasm should not be used excessively to put someone down, I can tell when you're not being lighthearted with it. On that note, please don't make puns out of someone else's name, that's rude. Actually, don't make puns at all.

-If there is a one sided debate, please, for the love of parliamentary procedure, do not call for a "five minute in-house recess," you all should be adequately prepared. Here's a tip- if you need to flip sides, find a way to flow your impacts to the opposite side. Your opponents do this all the time to your impacts and this way it's not that different of a speech and you are more familiar with the content. And, trust me, I will notice when you stand up for the opposite side. It will be much appreciated.

-Ask a lot of questions, but please don't throw softballs like "do you think this bill is good?", there are questions like these all the time coated in different words but I can tell it's just as surface-level

-QUALITY OVER QUANTITY. Never feel forced to speak. If you think that you need to give an additional speech, make sure it's good. If it's bad, it will be the last thing I remember you by. One time, I once gave a student a "7" even though she only spoke once between two sessions. Quality matters!

-If I'm a parli, I will keep a running rank of your performance round by round and will determine my ranking based on your average. If there is a tie in averages, I will consider the most recent session, whether or not you have presided, and, if all else fails, affirmative action to break the tie (most applicable when there is more than one student that hasn't spoken and I am expected to rank all students).

P.O. Evaluations:

-I understand if they are going over-time that you will "gavel them down" but if your default gavel tap is 1,0000 decibels, it will not be appreciated (especially if I'm your parli)

-Never P.O. to get out of speaking, I can tell. In reality, a good P.O. should be doing more work than when they are speaking because they should always be paying attention

-Study parli pro until it becomes natural please. Look at the NSDA sheet, Quizlet, whatever works

-Know at the beginning of the session (based on the number of students in the room) how many votes will get you 2/3, how many for 1/3, and how many for majority.

-If you choose "whoever stands/ whoever I see first" to determine speaking order, you will be marked down. This may seem like a decent, arbitrary system, until you notice only the students that jump out of their seats get called. Plus, proximity tells me your line of sight will be whoever is closer to you and nearest the center.

-Know your "procedural speech" so we can start as soon as you get elected, and you can give the speech while setting up.

Public Forum:

-I expect copious evidence and argument deduction to make it clear to me who is winning.

-"Off-time roadmaps" are lame. Do it on your time, it takes three seconds. In reality, your signposting should be good enough that you won't need it.

-I will raise my fist when time has elapsed. Finish your sentence and give a concluding statement, such as "thus, we negate"

-I will hold up a hand if you are going too fast

-Speaker points are not just based on presentation. It is based on fluency, structure, signposting, clarity, analysis, and RESPECT! If I couldn't understand what you were saying and you ignore my signals to slow down, you will get a 26 because clarity is a prerequisite to almost everything else. If you ever put down your opponents, yell at them, or anything of the sort, you will get a 25. This doesn't mean you will lose the debate, it just means you are not a respectful debater.

Constructive speech:

-Try not to go ridiculous with the number of contentions nor sub-points.

-Lots of evidence please, and explain why it matters even if it's "implied," either CEWI or CWEI format for each point- your impacts should always be last. Enunciate and give vocal variation to emphasize what is really important (*cough* impacts).

Rebuttals:

-Evidence!!!!

-Cover everything; contentions, sub-points, and framework. I don't expect an article for everything on the opposition because that would be a little suspicious, but at least outweigh or frame the argument.

-You don't need to "go back to your own speech," defensiveness is lame. The best defense is attack. I got it down on my flow already thanks.

Summary:

- This is a summary, not a rebuttal speech at half the time. Narrow it down to the voters please. Only then should you go back to your constructive and show why each voter is supported by your side, not theirs. You respond to rebuttal arguments here.

Final Focus:

-Tell me a story of the debate. Show where the voters started on your side, where your opponents tried to pull them to their side, and conclude why their reasoning is flawed. More framework here than in summary,

Cross-X's:

-Please be nice.

-If you're PRO, just ask the first question, you don't need permission.

-Be prepared with questions so you're not floundering around in awkward silence while there's a cross.

-Clarifications are ok! Use CX to your advantage if you want more material for the next speech.

LD:

-I have never judged an LD round, but that doesn't mean I can't declare a winner. I am qualified to judge any debate so if you expect your side only to win with those that "get LD," that's a problem and you should make it very easy to follow so that even a speech coach could tell you're wining.

Experience: 7 years of judging PF and Congress, Juris Doctor with Legal background.

Philosophy:

I approach debate as an educational activity that fosters critical thinking, effective communication, and the exploration of various perspectives. My role is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented, the quality of evidence and analysis, and the overall coherence of the debate.

Roles of the Debaters:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear, concise, and organized speeches. Debaters should articulate their points effectively, signpost, and provide a clear roadmap for the round.

2. Argumentation: I prioritize well-developed and supported arguments. Provide strong evidence and analysis to back up your claims. Quality over quantity; I prefer a few strong points to numerous weak ones.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttal involves addressing the core of the argument, not just the surface-level claims.

4. Flexibility and Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on your opponent's arguments and the direction of the round.

Evidence and Sources:

From my legal education and background, I pay very close attention to sources. Cite reliable and credible sources. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. If a source is questionable, make sure to highlight this in your argumentation.

Cross-Examination:

I consider cross-examination to be an integral part of the debate. It's an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extract concessions from your opponent. Effective cross-examination can significantly strengthen your case. I will pay close attention to challenges to opponents' arguments and how it is used to strengthen your case.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, argumentation, strategic choices, and overall contribution to the round. Be respectful and professional throughout the debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to fairly and objectively evaluate the arguments presented. I will not inject my personal opinions into the decision-making process. I will assess the round based on what transpires in the debate.

Speed and Delivery:

While I can handle a moderate pace, I value clarity over speed. If your arguments become unclear due to rapid delivery, it may hinder your overall assessment.

Respect and Decorum:

Maintain respect for your opponents, partner, and the judge throughout the round. Be mindful of time limits and follow the established rules. I do not tolerate arguing over each other or unnecessary interjections as it muddles and slows the debate.

Final Thoughts:

Remember, debate is an educational activity, but don't forget to have fun! Embrace the opportunity to learn, grow, and engage with different perspectives. I look forward to a productive and insightful round!

Hello debaters!

My name is Lauren Melton, I was a public forum debater for three years in high school and this will be my fifth year acting as a PF judge, as well as my first year coaching the category! In terms of what I like to see in a round, I really appreciate off-time roadmaps (though keep them short), clear signposting, and weighing in speeches after constructives. Signposting as you go makes it very clear what arguments you are attacking on your opponents side and defending on your own and that is great for my flow of the round! I also like to see weighing as I view it as a great way to directly put your arguments against your opponents and tell me why you win the round. Additionally, I like to see carded evidence explained throughout the round. If you tell me in your rebuttal speech that Carver et al. 2024 negates your opponents argument for such and such reason, and then for the rest of the round simply say "and we flow through our Carver et al. 2024 card so that still stands" that's not strong enough for me. I want to see the information provided in the card reiterated in every speech it is mentioned in, just one quick sentence about it, otherwise enough hasn't been done to flow the information through the round. I also do not typically flow crossfire, so if you or your opponent brought in information in crossfire that is valuable to your argument, bring it up in your speeches as well.

Things I do not like to see in a round:Theory and K's - I am not experienced or well-versed enough in these styles of debate to judge them fairly or accurately. You may have an excellent theory argument or K, I am just not the judge to run it by, best to stick to the resolution. I also do not appreciate the burden of solvency being placed on the neg. While the aff is the side that typically provides solvency to a resolution, and you absolutely should tell me you are the side that is going to save lives, boost the economy, etc., don't then also turn that back on the neg and ask them what solutions they will provide in a neg world. That is not their role and that is not a type of argument that convinces me in a round. Finally, super-powered impacts - While it's true that world-wide nuclear annihilation or 22 billion deaths lost to climate change are greater impacts then GDP loss, unless the resolution is directly applicable to such an argument, rarely are the links I've seen in cases strong enough to access such a statistic, be realistic on your impacts.

In terms of decorum/presentation throughout the round I am fine with speed in speeches to an extent, don't go over the top and make sure you are articulating your words. There's nothing gained in speaking quickly to add in more information if the judge can't catch what you are saying. I prefer when debaters stand in the round for everything besides grand crossfire, but feel free to ask if you'd rather sit, I have nothing against it! I also really appreciate when debaters remain respectful to each other throughout the round. I completely understand that debate is a competitive activity and rounds can get pretty heated, but doing things like making faces when your opponent said something you disagree with in a speech, or repeatedly cutting each other off and talking over each other in crossfire doesn't add anything to the round, and it is something a judge is always going to see.

I am a former competitor in Public Forum as well as Congressional Debate. I look for clear impacts that I can weigh at the end of rounds. Additionally, I am looking for strong citations when it comes to claims being made.

I am a 90s graduate of the Grand Rapids Speech and Debate program and a veteran camper at Concordia. I spent nearly a decade under the tutelage of the Notorious Lee Alto coaching and judging for the Grand Rapids Program. After pausing for many years to focus solely on being a mom, I was welcomed back into the community. I am honored to have been a regular judge for Duluth Denfeld for the past few years. I have spent the past few years judging both Congressional and Public Forum Debate.

I am open to listen to any well-developed argument. There's honestly a little bit of each paradigm in my judging persona, although I tend to lean towards policy maker. I weigh advantages, disadvantages, voting issues. Preference on teams doing the weighing for me in their summaries. Any well-developed argument is fair game from topicality to validity of evidence. I don't prefer the absurd game player theories, but I'll listen to anything! I'll vote on analytical arguments if that's what made the most sense in the round.

Weigh the round.

Give me the voters.

Take the control out of my hands.

Give me well developed arguments and analysis.

During my time as a contestant or as a judge, I have experienced Classic Debate (native to MN), Lincoln Douglas Debate, Congressional Debate, Public Forum Debate, and every speech event. Below are few things to note about how I judge debate in particular.

1. I am not a judge that likes to completely evaluate on dropped arguments, number of arguments pulled through the flow, etc. Substantive, impact, large scope debate is what I primarily evaluate on. What differentiates debaters most clearly for me is whether or not they are able to look at the big picture arguments and WEIGH at the end. Link the warrant to the impact, and show me, on a practical level, how your argument outweighs or should be the only one considered when comparing both sides. Make the linkage for me back to the broader issue at hand.

2. The second best next to weighing is gaining the upper hand the offensive arguments. This is crucial. Debaters win on arguments with offense that gives them impact, not defensive argument. Arguments with defense have their place, but offensive arguments win. For example, I will evaluated who gains access to impact, and thus weighing, through the use of the arguments with offense on both sides of the debate. Choose these arguments to flow though and tell me to vote on.

3. I am not a fan of critiques ("Ks"). I will still judge it by its merit in the debate, but bringing through powerfully realistic arguments will win.

4. Restating an argument doesn't do much if it is not linked to a new point or a new weighing mechanism for why I should vote for your side. I cut some slack on this in Congressional debate, as that is the nature of the style, but I want to see a link to the comparison of the overall reason why I should reasonably choose your side over the opponents.

In short, I am old school type of debater and judge. Good arguments, properly warranted, linked, and impacted will do well. Distilling down the debate near the end to the essential components and showing me why I should still prefer your side is best.

Competition Background

High School Speech: Eden Valley - Watkins HS, MN (6 years): Drama, Original Oratory, and Great Speeches

College Speech: Gustavus Adolphus College (4 Years): Informative, After Dinner Speaking, and Extemporaneous Speaking

College Debate: Gustavus Adolphus College (2 years): Parliamentary Debate

Coaching Experience

Wayzata High School - Speech (6 years): Great Speeches & Original Oratory

Watzata High School - Debate: (5 years): Congressional Debate

Congress:

PO - I do not want to be hands-on. Be able to handle the chamber with little assistance with efficiency and that'll be perfect. Make sure to pick on people fairly and show transparency. Online tracking is preferred.

Speakers - Don't just read to me a report. Give me a speech with emotions and passion. Show that you care about your side and your constituents. I do not mind reusing arguments from others as long as you build on top of them and go beyond their impact. Please extend your impacts. Tell me not just what the bill does well or poorly, but also how the people's lives change because of this. Interact with each other. You should be incorporating rebuttal arguments into your speeches as early as the first neg, and giving references to both speakers on your side and on the opposing side is a big plus.