I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking.
Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)ĭebate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice.
I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have 4 years debate experience in Parli.