Last changed on
Thu March 28, 2024 at 11:16 AM EDT
Background
I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.
Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net
Judging Philosophy
I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.
I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.
Speed
Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.
Kritiks
Kritiks are fine
Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.
I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.
If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.
Topicality
Full disclosure: I love good T debates.
The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.
Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.
I want the violation to be as specific as possible.
Standards and voters are essential.
All other arguments
Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.
Cross-Examination
I don't flow it, but I pay attention.
If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.
Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.
Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!
