Hi,

I'm a student at Northeastern University who currently competes in Parliamentary debate, but I did PF and some Congress in High School. What that means for you is that I can follow some speed but not full-on spreading, and that I tend to prefer logical arguments or empirical ones.

PF PARADIGM

I'm probably not gonna vote off a relatively minor point. In your final focus, spend more time explaining the biggest issues of clash in the round and why you outweigh. I don't want to here every single aff and neg contention being treated as it's own voting issue. I'll vote off of how those contentions interact with each other.

Give warrants other than specific pieces of evidence. People find cards for all sorts of trends, and there's usually conflicting evidence. If you have a logical warrant for why your card makes sense, I can vote off that. But if both teams just give me stats without explainations, I can't vote off either.

Also, refer to cards by the thing they say, not the author/source, otherwise I have no idea what you're referring to.

For high speaks, try to attack an argument at the warrants and the impacts, and then outweigh it even if you lose that point. Don't be afraid to not spend too much time responding to low-impact points just for the sake of not dropping somethingif it means you're using your time to develop the more important issues in the round.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I don't judge Congress much, so in general treat your speech like a speech in a debate event. By that, I mean that I don't care much for rhetorical devices, I'd prefer warrants an impacts. Try to include substantive refutation in your speech if there are

a) really important refutations that you have to make 

or b) clear, repetitive issues on either side that should be compared, refuted, and weighed.

Affiliation: Brookings HS, Brighton HS
Debate Experience: Four years of high school policy for Brookings HS in South Dakota, four years of college parliamentary for Boston University, two years coaching high school policy for New Mission HS in Massachusetts, one year coaching high school policy for Brookings HS, one year coaching high school policy for Brighton HS, four years coaching college parli for Brandeis University and Wellesley College.

I haven't judged much this year, but I'm somewhat familiar with the topic literature through cutting files for the BDL.

Judging Philosophy:
For the most part, this is up for you to determine. I try to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible, but there are a few things you can do to improve your odds:

1. Clash, warrant, and weigh.

2. Have a coherent story. Unless you set up a framework telling me otherwise, I'll default to weighing probability more than the average policy judge.

3. Tell me what to vote on and why. During your rebuttals, write the RFD for me. Be explicit: what do you have to do to win, and how have you achieved that? What did your opponents fail to do that should cost them the round?

4. As far as speed, you need to know your own limits. For me it's not an issue of speed but one of clarity; I don't care how fast you go as long as you're still actually saying words. The only time I've had trouble keeping up is when people speed through analytical blocks that pack 10 distinct arguments in a span of 15 seconds.

I'm fine with just about anything as long as it's clearly and persuasively explained. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. And have fun!

I <3 debate

Heya!

So basically my background is that I graduated from Lexington High School in 2013 where I debated LD for all four years. You can run whatever you want, but make sure your arguments have clear warrants and implications, and explain how your arguments interact with the other arguments in the round, because no one likes judge intervention (least of all your judges.) If you have any questions please ask me before the round (: