I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas primarily throughout high school, while also doing Public Forum and Policy debates when they struck my fancy. From my experience, I enjoy passionate (though respectful) debates about the topic at hand and do not rely solely on differences in definitions. Whether you win the debate or not will be determined on how convincing your argument was and whether the opposition was able to provide counterpoints that diminish your arguments. How you form your argument, how respectful you are during the debate, and how you manage your time will determine your speaker points.

Examples of good debating and speaking:

• Respectfully stating arguments
• Cutting off your competitor in crossfire/cross-examination with a "Thank you"
• Being firm in your points against your opponent without being mean
• Asking both me and your opponent if we are ready before you start your time
• Talking with purpose and emphasis to convey the importance of your arguments

Examples of bad debating and speaking:

• Calling your opponent names
• Packing up your things before the last speaker is done
• Laughing/Talking that isn't discussion with your teammate/Making faces while the other speaker is speaking
• Only focusing on points your opponent has dropped
• Speeding through your plan to fit it all in the time - I'm not going to understand you and you will not be able to persuade me

I am fine with guests/shadow debaters attending to observe and support though please remind them to keep their actions from distracting you or your competitor. The only people who should be speaking during the debate should be you and your competition.

Off-time roadmaps are good with me - they should be a quick sentence, not an entire speech.

Debate can be stressful so if you feel yourself getting overwhelmed, take breath.

I look forward to hearing your plans!

Judging Debate: I value a solid, well-articulated argument. I'm not impressed by speed. Although more evidence is better then less, if you don't articulate your positions (value/ contentions) well, all the evidence in the world won't help. In addition, you also have to be able to think on your feet (off book, that is not reading from your prepared text) especially in the X and Summary rounds.

For speech, I am an English teacher, so I look for the depth and interpretation of your piece. You need to speak well and articulate your presentation clearly. You must be passionate about what you speak. Every reading/ interpretation/ presentation should aim to move your audience.

All debate styles - I do not read shared files until the end if I need to refer to a piece of evidence. Debate is supposed to be understood not read. I do not mind speed but make sure it is enunciated and intelligible. Watch my body language, if you have any questions if I am understanding you....Head down and flowing your speech...I understand you. Watching you without a pen in my hand....you are not making any sense to me and I can not follow your arguments.

Policy (CX) - I am a stock issue judge. Focus on the stock issues and why the AFF does or does not satisfy them. Spreading is okay but make sure your arguments make sense. Do not start a bunch of arguments in the 1 NC just to drop most of them by 2 NC or the 1NR. There are very few times an extinction argument truly works. Do not run one just to run it. Most of the time, it makes the NEG look desperate.

Lincoln - Douglas (LD) - Focus on your value and value criterion. Be clear on why your value criterion is better than your opponent's or why you satisfy your opponent's value criterion better than they do.

Public Forum (PF) - While it is easy to have most everything prepared and ready before the round, do not forget to address your opponents' argument and point out where you are different and why your side is the better choice.

If you have further questions please ask me before the round starts.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

A final note on LD - Lincoln Douglas is styled on an election debate - you are trying to get elected, persuade the judge to vote for you - you are not trying to cram in as many words as you can in hopes that one of them might give you the win, if only you speak so fast your opponent can't physically flow your speech.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

Please do your best to state your definitions for the resolution. I've had it happen a couple of times where definitions weren't clear and it became a messy debate. I'm okay with definition debates where a definition in the resolution would significantly change or affect the way a resolution is interpreted. However, if they are excessively nitpicky and wouldn't significantly impact things, please try to avoid it. While definitions are important and should to an extent be debated, the contentions and those impacts are what should really matter.

I'm okay with speaking fast/spreading to an extent. Just be sure you are speaking clearly and loudly enough that we can hear you. Please do your best not to mumble.

Ensure you are citing your evidence correctly in your speeches.

Notes on etiquette:

I will, without any hesitation, give you low points and drop your case if you are rude during and immediately following the debate.

A short list of some things I find rude:

Packing your things up before the last speaker is done

Laughing/talking while the other speaker is giving his speech

Throwing things at a competitor

Just generally being a bully and unprofessional.

*If you make it to finals and want your team members/friends to come watch and support you I'm okay with that. However, you will be penalized if your friends/team mates are disruptive and rude as well. This shouldn't need to be said but for some reason this has happened more than once.