Background

Former LD debater (traditional) from Ohio (traditional state). NSDA qualifier 1998. Recently returned to debate as a coach. Law prof.

Circuit Debate

I've judged a lot of rounds, but I'm relatively new to circuit debate.

I believe the pedagogical goals of debate are best served by rounds that substantively engage the resolution. I'm open to any arguments when stated clearly and explained, but I will only vote on arguments that you explain well enough that I understand them. It's your job to offer clear explanations of complex arguments within the round.

Some speed is okay, but please do not spread. You can put me on the mail chain at qcurtis@gmail.com, but this is a speech activity not competitive emailing, so do not expect me to spend the whole round in the document.

Virginia Debate

I flow rounds and vote off the flow when I can. I don't like voting for bad arguments, but I can't vote on arguments that you don't make.

Keep your speeches organized, tell me where you are on the flow, and impact and weigh your arguments. Identify key arguments and give voting issues in NR and AR2.

Don't drop critical points; point out and impact your opponent's dropped points. Affirmative gets some scope to condense the round to key arguments in AR1.

If you feel you won a point in cross-x, make that argument in a speech.

No new arguments in the NR or AR2. Those speeches are for extending arguments already on the flow.

Evidence

Strong factual claims should be supported with evidence. Evidence that simply asserts value or philosophical claims without argument gets limited weight. Good analysis > bad evidence.

Speed

In varsity rounds: Some speed is okay, but keep it under control and make sure you are clear. I will signal with a raised hand if I need you to slow up a bit.

In JV rounds: JV rounds are for learning. A bit faster than conversational pace is okay, but I have low tolerance for speed that might be too much for a new debater.

Background:

Throughout my high school career I participated in Model Congress, Model UN, We The People, Virginia History Day, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Pro/Con Debate Challenge, Prepared Prompt Speaking, Original Oratory, and Great Communicator. I have competed in numerous settings ranging from local invitationals to state championships to nationals. I am well-versed in the world of forensics and currently participate in collegiate speech and debate (extemp, impromptu, poetry, CA, persuasion, parli, IPDA, etc.)

Judging Preferences:

LD - Traditional LD is my preference, but I don't mind progressive style arguments so long as they are accessible and germane to the topic. I am looking for strong framework, empirical evidence, signposting, impact calculus, crystallization, and voters.

PF - Make your evidence, warrants, and impacts clear. Please remember that PF is meant to be an accessible form of debate. I value respect and politeness in round. Strong delivery is encouraged, but excess aggression will make it hard for you to receive my ballot.

Congress - I like to see persuasive, extemporaneous speeches. Be prepared and focus on delivery.

Speech Events - I will be looking for appropriate tone, clear diction, dynamic pacing, intentional movement, and well-placed passion. These criteria apply to both platform and interpretation events.

Speed - I can handle speed but do not spread.

I prefer competitors to speak clearly. "Spread" at your own risk. This isn't about who makes the MOST arguments but who makes the best and clearest arguments, both attacking their opponents' arguments and defending their own! Debate is about listening and responding, so please don't waste time during the debate trading cases. If you use a "kritik" or "k" on neg, understand I think you are putting yourself at an immediately disadvantage because you are avoiding debating the topic at hand. If you are going to ask for "cards," the time it takes comes from your prep time or questioning time (or both); I'm not extending the debate to spend time looking for cards.

Public Forum:

- I expect a true debate, without the technical structures of LD and Policy debate

- I vote for the side which argued the most-convincing arguments

- I believe evidence should be presented and utilized, but not argued over or leaned upon.

- I believe crossfires should have discussion. They are not cross-examinations.

- I expect professionalism and courtesy. You can't argue against your opponent if you don't understand them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am relatively inexperienced juding an LD debate. If you want me to understand your flow, please be sure to walk through it diligently and with patience. You have a long time for a construct, so use it. However, I do appreciate when a debate consistently and appropriately ties arguments to the value and criterion, as that helps me understand the impacts of the arguments.

Hello! I'm so glad you are here presenting today!

Debate etiquette is very important to me. Be a nice person, avoid talking over opponents, and use NO ad hominem attacks.

If contents of your argument include particular graphic descriptions or triggering content, please give a warning BEFORE the round starts.

I enjoyed my high school career as a policy debater. Later, I served as a coach and a judge over the course of the twenty-five years that I have been an educator. I am also a mother to a teen, so I appreciate the hard work that debaters dedicate to their craft.