Last changed on
Sat September 28, 2024 at 1:40 PM PDT
Background: I primarily did PF, interp, and Congress in high school. Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.
In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate. Please also use strong warranting; reading card after card, or centering the debate on which evidence to prefer, rarely wins my vote over higher quality argumentation.
Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education). Your job is to argue with your opponents, not use jargon or speed to exclude them.
PF: As a former PFer, I appreciate a traditional approach. This is not circuit policy. Clash! Weigh your evidence against your opponents' evidence! Tell me why I should pref yours! Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Establish tangible impacts! Make sure your links are strong so you can access your impacts! Consider impacts beyond nuclear war (and if you're going to impact out to nukes, make sure your links are solid). Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.
LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.
Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.
Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I value unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp. Include a content warning before presenting about topics that may trigger or upset your competitors or judge(s). Not including content warnings for sensitive content will impact your ranking.
Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make this experience hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively talking during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.
