Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

If you can’t beat a “bad” argument then you are a bad advocate for your cause (and you should lose).

Don't expect me to understand or apply the necessary context to certain words or catch phrases that you might use.

I will try to be fair in evaluating whatever you run. Impact calculus is important.

I think there are a number of ways debate can be done really well (my favorite thing about debate).

I prefer you do what you are best at instead of what you think is best for me. Make me adapt to you.

T

Tell me why your interpretation is better for debate. Do comparative impact calculus. What impacts are most important (what framework should the judge utilize when evaluating T impacts).

K

The more specific the links the happier I'll be. I think perms should tend towards utilizing the language of the alternative text and away from the generic "do both" or "plan and every other instance". I find a lot of my decisions usually revolve around a framework argument.

K Affs

I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.

CP

The more of the aff it includes the more skeptical I am of the CP’s legitimacy. Competition/Theory arguments are best when based on evidence (especially topic ev). I'm definitely in the "neg conditionality has gotten out of control" camp--1cp 1k probably ok, 1 CP that does the aff, 1 k with an alt that could do the aff and a word PIC definitely absolutely not legit (affs need to learn how to go for theory). Theory requires development and impact calculus.

Other

I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

As an experienced parliamentary debater, I evaluate material based on its syllogistic strengths. Arguments should be supported not just with evidence, but strong logical reasoning. I also believe in judges not stepping in and making subjective value judgments on the merits of different arguments and issues. Because of this, I appreciate debaters that are able to explain in great detail the importance of their case in the context of the debate. In terms of speaking style, I prefer speakers who speak in a calmer and easier to follow pace and tone.

Public Forum

1. You have a limited amount of time use it wisely. Collapse the debate down to the voting issues you believe you are winning.

2. Offense is more important than defense.

3. Weigh the debate accordingly.

4. I engage in paper flowing during debates; however, I do not specifically flow during crossfire, though I ensure to pay close attention. My hope is for debaters to view crossfire as an opportunity for polite and orderly exchanges, leading to meaningful conversations, rather than resorting to aggression and unwarranted accusations.

5. I will base my decision based on sound logic and drops on the flow.

About me

I have been coaching and judging PF for more than 4 years.

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.I care more about the analysis of the linkage.

Crossfire: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X.

About Framework:

please kindly explain why your framework is more important in debates.

Free feel ask me questions if you have any
akram0217@gmail.com

Will Scott

Director of Speech and Debate, Speechcraft Chengdu
Coaching (primarily PF and OO) in China for over 8 years, Debated policy debate at Liberty for 3 years (2009-12: Nukes, Immigration, Democracy Assistance topics), coached policy at James Madison for 2 years(2013-2015). Did speech in high school (Primarily OO and Extemp).

PF:

-Speed is ok if you are clear. I still flow by hand, so I need pen time. If you speak really fast and don't make it clear when you are changing contentions/cards, you run the risk of me missing it on the flow.

-If it's not in the final focus, I won't vote for it.

-If there's nothing in the summary I can connect the final focus argument to, I'm very unlikely to vote for it.

-If it's only in crossfire and never explained in a speech, I'm unlikely to vote for it.

-If there's a clear framework, I will evaluate the debate based on that framework. That doesn't mean you automatically win the round because you win the framework, just that I will look at the round through the lens of that framework.

-If the ballot is supposed to be something other than who wins the largest impact make sure I am aware of what you want me to do with the ballot.

-Stealing prep annoys me. Your speaker points will suffer.

-I don't have a defined preference as far as 2nd rebuttal frontlining the 1st.

OO/Informative

-You're not gonna change what you do for me. Speak clearly, do what you do, and have fun!

-If you're looking at this before the tournament, know that one of my biggest things is that I look for a preview in speeches. I will tend to write down the preview and use that to follow the body. If the speech has a clear preview that it actually follows then I will be very happy.

Extemp:

-I expect to see a clear structure and a clear thesis. While I generally keep up with current events, you should assume I have less knowledge than you on your topic and should explain thusly.