I am a former LD and Policy Debater.

I have 6 years of coaching experience as well as 10 years of judging experience.

Across all debate disciplines I really focus on Cross Examination and how those revelations or contradictions are used in the following speeches.

Policy:

I am a pretty conservative "stock issue" judge. Aff MUST be prima facia and MUST win all stock issues or at least not lose one. If Aff wants to avoid Topicality issues they should define their terms or they surrender ground to the neg. I am ok with a counterplan BUT if the AFF carries all the stock issues and the Neg CP is just " a little better" I will vote Aff. I LOVE a straight neg that just focuses on the Aff problems and case. That said I am ok with K's so long as they are done well. A poor K or one that feels like just throwing something out there because either side doesn't have much on case attack will not be very highly valued. Ultimately I judge the debate I get; not the one I want, so I do go with the flow. I flow debates. No problems with speed, but sometimes slowing down for the big ticket items is a good play. I try to make my eyes and facial gestures let you know how I am feeling, thinking or interpreting what you are doing so you can use that feedback to adjust if needed. I love it when both sides just agree on less important stuff and move on the focus on the points of greater conflict. It is not weak for either side to agree with a point here and there and move on. I generally prefer analysis of evidence over cards themselves.

LD: Winning the Criterion or Value debate will not necessarily mean victory. I put an emphasis on logic, analysis and examples. Speed is fine but typically less powerful than a more controlled pace. Most debates are won and lost in CX in my opinion.

PF: I like clash, so please get after one another as much as possible in on case arguments...don't just restate your case. I like PF really traditional, but understand its a bit more open by design so I generally go with the flow. I don't mind aggressive debating but really frown on being rude.

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

I’m a communications judge. Please speak clearly enough that I can understand your ideas. I can handle a faster pace but make sure you're not speaking quickly so you can repeat yourself. Give me voters at the end. I ask that you maintain professionalism and that you're respectful to your opponent's and judges.

Policy: Don't argue the Neg begins at a disadvantage or there is an uneven playing field. I will take that to mean you believe you can't beat any of the Aff arguments.

For policy:

Don’t get too abstract; all your arguments need to have strong links. Arguments need to tie together and that be understandable. Your speed needs to be understandable with mild to no spreading/speed. Tag teaming is fine, no k’s, but topicality is cool. When evaluating impacts don’t pull Kish arguments such as controversial social issues into it. Don’t bring race or gender into it, and shy away from social issues that feel manipulative. Don’t play on my emotions, give me a great, straight debate. You can run technical things but it won't prioritize as well. I am looking for stock issues, mostly. Strong foundation, lots of meat in the middle, strong ethics in your interactions (respect for each other), and may the best argument win.

I’m big on respect between partners and teams. Impacts should be more logic-based then emotions, as there’s a difference between science and emotional guilt/engineering.

Voters should include the heights of why your team is winning. If you don’t bring something up in voters, and I don’t have it on my flow, it may not be counted.

In all events:

Ethics and etiquette are high stakes in all events.

PREFACE: I have not judged a single round (this year) before this tournament (The Trojan War) so I have no idea about topic-specific references like acronyms, nuanced issues, etc. If you do the legwork to define an ambiguous issue right before you present it in the debate, that would be ideal! (No need for more than that, I can pick it up the first time)

I did debate all four years of high school and now two years in college. I mostly debated in Policy and LD while in high school.

I did Radio, Extemp, and some interp for speech.

I flow and take notes on my laptop. You can assume that I am paying attention even when I'm buried in the screen.

I am easily distracted. Talking to me directly, telling me what evidence to look at and where, clear signposting, sending over speech documents, etc. ensures that your words make their way onto my flow.

I believe any argument as true unless tested by some analytic or evidence.

I will not weigh arguments that attack a person's identity.

Try your best to make the debate accessible to everybody. If someone doesn't like speed, then don't go fast. (For example)

I am not perfect when it comes to bias, but I try my best to be a blank slate. Run whatever arguments you want. (I am only familiar with very basic K literature/strategy so be mindful of that)

I believe debate is a game so taking it "seriously" matters insofar as how we talk about impacts. Treating death as hilarious is different from giving a sarcastic answer in cross-ex. I'm okay with the latter. I'll give you a boost in speaks if you can make the debate enjoyable with non-problematic jokes.

I'll give you speaker points based on a combination of your in-round strategy and delivery.