Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past seven years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing). If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first then considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
4. I am a tech judge who loves trad debate at reasonable speed. I will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross. It only matters if it is mentioned in the next speech.
5. Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I am known to call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE CASE. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth finding. LISTEN and analyze. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is hard to sell to me. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it of course.
9. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosphical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW
10. I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points.
11. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
12. As I grow as a coach and judge I have grown to respect cases that demonstrate creative, out-of-the-box argumentation. I am bored by stock cases and arguments that are overused and underdeveloped.
13. Disclosure Theory in round- I personally think disclosing helps grow education and makes for interesting debates but I don't want to hear disclosure theory as your argument for why you win. Work with what is presented. I don't think I have ever given a win to somebody running disclosure as a voter but I guess it could happen.
14. Use evidence challenges CAREFULLY and SPARINGLY- at the end of the day, it is usually a waste of time for us all. The judges are savvy enough to know when we are hearing evidence that sounds sketchy. If you don't buy evidence you can ask for cards but let's not do this repeatedly throughout the round. It breaks up the flow of the debate and becomes more frustrating than anything else. Don't hang your win on calling out one bad card but definitely call out untruths if you hear them and can prove them.
15. Decision disclosure- I will disclose if allowed by the tournament.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones. I am here for you always.

Speaks: based on organization and time allocation

Summary: 1. if it's not said in this speech i wont flow it to the FF.

2. Collapse down to fewer contentions, and explain why they drop off the flow (wash, block, etc.), but still go line by line as much as possible.

FF- 1. Give me big picture themes that the round has collapsed to. Not just your voters and their voters, collapse on the round as a whole, big picture.

*I dont flow CX so say it again in speech if its important

** I'm ok with speed, but go easy on me its been a few years

*** I HATE EVIDENCE DEBATES. If there is even in the slightest a voter issue/arg in the round relying on the properly cut evidence, then i will call to see the card. I will treat it as a reverse voting issue if the accusing side is wrong to disincentivize wild accusations.

I am a Senior Finance and Appropriations Attorney for the Virginia General Assembly. I participated on the debate team in high school and have been volunteering as a middle and high school debate judge in Maryland, New York City, and now the Richmond area since graduating from college in 2013.

Generally, my philosophy on debating stems from my legal experience, legal education, and the legislative process. I seek well reasoned arguments presented with vigor, based on credible, varied evidence, and the ability of participants to address opposing views without losing momentum for their own case.

Please present with an organized structure that introduces your position, builds strength behind your position, and makes a conclusion that summarizes the most important points you want the judge to consider. Do not rush through your presentation and speak with clarity and confidence. Please do not simply read off of your notes.

Additionally, a brief pause to collect a thought is always preferable to saying "um."

I look forward to judging and seeing you all in action.

I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.

Email chain: rhetorrao@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

I am most comfortable with a traditional policy-like strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.

I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.

Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.

Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.

I’m a law student at Wake Forest. While I have never debated competitively, I fell in love with arguments, studying economics and philosophy in college. This is my third year judging high school debate. In the past, I have judged LD, PF, and Congress.

General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is about excellence in argumentation, and arguments are a special kind of explanation that uses claims, warrants, and impacts to lead its audience towards the acceptance of particular conclusions. Debaters should keep in mind that the characteristics of a good argument are the characteristics of a good explanation. While debate is more than mere explanation, good explainers and good debaters do the following well:

• use plain language when possible;
• prize clarity above speed or complexity;
• offer a complete explanation of their reasoning, which, in debate, means fully explaining the claim, warrant, and impact of each argument;
• use tags or "sign posts" to organize their speeches in an easy-to-follow way;
• emphasize key concepts or important points through their delivery; and
• keep the big picture in mind by constantly relating sections of their speech back to their bottom-line conclusion.

Many debaters are narrowly focused on beating the other side. While winning is the goal of debate, beating the other side need not be the only strategy one tries. An alternative strategy is to approach each round with the goal of making the other side better. You might try conceding part of your opponent's argument, charitably interpreting part of your opponent's speech, or helping your opponent adopt a stronger premise. Believe it or not, this strategy often wins because it demonstrates confidence in your own arguments and builds credibility with the judge. As an added benefit, it improves the overall level of debate.

How I Evaluate Debates

I take notes during the round (also known as flowing). As soon as the round ends, I reconstruct each argument, giving special attention to what each side told me were the decisive issues in their final speeches. Next, I evaluate each argument with the following questions in mind:

• Logic. Were the claims, warrants, and impacts of each argument fully explained? Were there any gaps or unexplained steps in the reasoning? Did warrants offer strong reasons to back their claims? Did impacts communicate the significance of each claim to the debate overall?
• Evidence. Did the evidence strongly or weakly support the claims it backed? Did the debater state evidence accurately, or was evidence overstated in any way?
• Responsiveness. Did the debater engage with the other side's arguments? Did the debater refute 'straw men' or the other side's actual position?

Understanding an argument is a prerequisite to evaluating it. Unfortunately, I have to disregard any lines of reasoning I cannot understand. An intelligible argument contains a claim, a warrant, and an impact. So, for example, simply saying "my side should prevail because Kant said lying is immoral" does not communicate an intelligible argument. That statement, apart from additional context, is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. I might happen to know that Kant thought lying was immoral because lying violates the categorical imperative, but a different judge with a different background might not. More importantly, by failing to explain what the categorical imperative is and why lying violates it, the hypothetical debater has failed to offer a reason why someone should accept their argument. Having failed to offer any reasons, the debater has failed to engage in rational persuasion at all.

Speed

I acknowledge the benefits of a fast round. Unfortunately, I can only understand 1.5x conversational speed. If I get to the point where I cannot understand you, I will get your attention by saying, "Too fast!" Keep in mind that, by the time I have the chance to speak up, I likely have already missed part of your argument.

Competition-Specific Preferences

• For Congress, I place emphasis on delivery and on how well speeches contribute the deliberative goals of the body.
  
• For LD, I want to see values-based argument somewhere.
• For PF, debaters should focus on empirical argument. Values-based argumentation should take the back seat.
• For LD and PF, points go to the side that can effectively place empirical evidence within value frameworks.

Style Preferences

I will always vote for the strongest argument. However, all else being equal, I prefer:

• A small number of well-coordinated arguments to a great many disjoint ones.
• Nuanced arguments that concretely address the resolution at hand. Ask yourself: Can this argument be easily recycled for use in other resolutions? If the answer is yes, consider tailoring your argument more narrowly to the resolution at hand.

Former Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debater in the 90s/ 00s. I have coached for nearly 20 years in a mostly TRADITIONAL circuit.

Speed is fine if taglines are clear, and as long as you don't treat debate like an evidence dump. My request is that you spend the time to weigh the impacts and implications of any argument you run.

I hate whining (fairness arguments) and attempts to win on technicalities. Don't tell me what the rules are- there is a huge discrepancy between rules and norms. I don't buy disclosure theory. Don't run it. You both have infinite time...

I weight the round holistically. I pay attention to cross-ex. Things said during cross can help and hurt you.

I enjoy narrative cases, if done well.

Be civil and nice. I. CANNOT. STRESS. THIS. ENOUGH.