Clover Hill Groundhog Classic
2019 — Midlothian, VA/US
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideEmail: 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
- 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.
- 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. I expect arguments to be clear and reasonable.
- Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
- I am a 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 but it is not the only thing. 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.
- Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
- I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I may call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
- Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE MAIN IDEAS OF 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. What I mean is that I want to hear responses but they don't need to be line by line to win. You can chunk arguments together and attack logic which will mean just as much, or more, to me as finding a more recent card that has a bigger number.
- Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is a hard sell for my ballot. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF and LD 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.
- 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 philosophical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW and know what you are talking about when you claim that Liberty is important. Definitions will be important.
- I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points. The story is a big deal for me. What is the theme of your case. Is there a through line that ties all your contention level arguments together.
- For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
- 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.
- Disclosure Theory in round- I 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Background in Policy, very flow oriented. If you spread, slow down on tags. I will also say "CLEAR" if you aren't being coherent. Don't make me say CLEAR more than twice in a round.
Make sure you extent your arguments through the round or else I will hesitate to vote vote for them. This means extent your case through to the summary and final focus, no need to extent them in your rebuttal. Your rebuttal should mostly be used to refute your opponents case.
Cross-Ex should be cordial, and feel free to ask for each other's evidence.
Towards the end of round, I like when you point out to me your voters, and I want you to impact calc them.
Mis-tagging or mis-using evidence to prove a point which the cards don't warrant is a severe mistake in my book. The cards don't have to be perfect, just don't use blatantly bad evidence.
History:
I competed in debate through both at the high school and college levels. Since then, I have worked with a couple of debate teams, most recently with my two teens who compete. I have judged many Lincoln Douglas and PF debates (novice / JV and Varsity levels.) I was a policy debater in my competition days so, I do know how to flow and follow arguments.
View of Debate:
I am like a vigorous clash of issues and I am not a fan of accusations from one side that the other has violated some unwritten technical rule. Please, debate the resolution, counter the opposition’s claims, and respond to attacks. I do like interesting analysis and interpretation of the resolution, but please have it make sense. I am not a fan of spreading and will stop flowing if you are speaking to fast to be understood. If I can’t flow the debate, I assume that neither can your opponent. I can accept “fast” but it must be understandable and at a rate I can flow.
I love to see debaters use cross-x in a manner to lead their opponents down a road, only to find a dead-end with an ambush ready for them. In cross, lead your opponents with intentional questions to direct them where you want them and make your points! Please keep up with current events. I am impressed when debaters understand the issues they are debating and they can relate to current world events. A debate plan must make common sense and most judges read news and keep current. Know your topic!
Final Note:
Lastly, be courteous and respect your opponents. The winner of the debate will be the side that has the most persuasive arguments for/against and makes the most sense.
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 LD round, and I also like policy debates. 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 have been involved in speech and debate for over 25 years as a competitor, judge, coach, tournament director, and community advocate. I am versed in all event categories on both local and national circuits.
I coach in a traditional league. My preference is that students balance their argumentation with rhetorical skills. That being said- I am capable of handling speed, granted tag lines, citations, and impacts are enunciated clearly. What I do not like is spreading arguments for the sake of “gotcha” scenarios, like “my opponent dropped arguments 42, 63, and 74… so we automatically win the round.” I personally feel that a handful of well-developed, contextualized, and reinforced arguments will outweigh several dozen snapshots.
I keep a detailed flow of the round. To help me in my flow, please use concise tag lines and sign=post your arguments. I pay attention to cross, and believe anything said in cross is fair game for evaluation of the round. I even flow Congress.
As previously stated, I do give preference to students who can balance their rhetorical and argumentation skills. That being said, in all debate categories- argumentation is most-important. I like seeing use of appropriate debate terminology while making arguments and rebuttals. Tell me what your warrants are. Tell me what the impacts of your arguments are. Who are the stakeholders? Why should I prefer your argument over your opponents?
In Lincoln-Douglas, I want to see a values-oriented framework. If not structured traditionally, I still want to see an ethical emphasis. I am open to progressive tactics, and will consider kritical and plan-based constructives. On a special note: Morality, in my opinion, is a weak value due to the subjectivity and relativity of the term. If you choose morality as a value, I will not automatically vote you down- but I will need you clearly and concisely explain how your opponent’s approach is immoral, or does not meet you interpretation of morality.
In Public Forum, I tend to judge on a cost-benefit analysis. Do the pros outweigh the cons? What are the impacts? Who is impacted.
In Policy, I am much more open to progressive arguments, but give preference to stock issues. I can follow theory, kritiks, counterplans, etc.
In Congress, you have to have substance in your arguments. You have to consider what has already been said by other individuals. Does your speech drone on about the same stuff? Does your speech add additional context or value? I pay attention to this.
Historically, I have listened to just about every argument. I do like novel and creative arguments, but I do not automatically vote for them just because they are “outside of the box.” When in doubt, take a risk. What I do not buy are perceived fairness arguments like DISCLOSURE THEORY. True the affirmative has infinite prep, but guess what?! So does the negative. I feel that disclosure theory is a cop-out. It’s whiny. I will hear it, but I will not vote on it.
My expectations for all debaters is civil discourse. Be nice. Be supportive. Be sportsmanlike. If you do not engage in civil discourse, I will deduct speaker points. Bigotry and prejudicial comments will not be tolerated.