My email is aobdebate@gmail.com

I am the PF coach at Park City High School and I am a second-year out from Park City. I competed in PF all four years of high school on the local and nat circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. I am currently attending the University of Utah and studying international relations.

Tech > Truth

Please weigh and make sure your weighing is comparative.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

I can handle speed but I don't enjoy spreading. If you're going to spread, send a speech doc.

I determine speaker points by looking at your strategic decisions in the round and also how much I enjoy being in the round with you. Please do not be a bad person, I would not like that.

I won't call for cards unless you explicitly tell me to call for them and if that card would play a significant role in how I decide the round.

I'm fine with and generally enjoy theory. Don't be abusive with it, make sure your opponent is familiar with theory or has extensive experience in debate before running theory. If you run theory in front of someone who doesn't know how to respond to it, I will evaluate it but I will give your opponents a lot of leeway in responding to it. Theory is the one argument where I believe in Truth > Tech

For Policy:

I tend to be fairly progressive and will listen to most arguments you run.
With that being said, I don't typically vote off of T.
Kritiks are all good (as long as you know what you are doing).
Framework and voters are a big deal and I base the round off of these typically. Tell me why you should win. Go down your list of arguments, tell me why your opponent didn't beat them, and which ones are of greatest importance.

Most importantly, have fun and be respectful.

Former Policy debater/National Qualifier (JHS 2000-2003) and parent of sophomore debater at Alta High.

For email chains: lksylvia@gmail.com

Policy: I spent the majority of my time competing in policy debate. I am comfortable with any type of debate but prefer a more traditional round and preferred a policy maker framework when I debated myself. Advantages/disadvantages, solvency, and politics are all things I like to hear in a round--how does the plan work/not work in the real world?

If you are using more progressive arguments (kritikal affs/kritiks, etc) go for depth over breadth. I think a judge should adapt to the round presented to them, and I will do my best to evaluate the issues that are explained well in the rebuttals.