Please introduce yourselves and your position (when applicable to the event).

I expect participating parties to keep their own time and announce the time used at the end of each segment. I am tracking the time used as well, but will not provide prompts.

I generally follow the scoring rubric associated with each event.

When I judge congressional events, I look for each speech and question to advance the bill/resolution on the floor. If you are the fourth speaker aff/neg - reading a prepared speech that does not build on, address, or bring new points to the debate is not likely to do this. Note that my bar becomes higher for the fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. speaker on a side to truly bring new arguments or effectively rebut previous arguments so in most circumstances my bias is that after a few aff/neg rounds all speakers are better served by moving to vote and having the opportunity to debate another issue. I look for consistent, active engagement in the chamber.

I am particularly sensitive to every participant maintaining a respectful tone and body language (to both participants and judges), even while listening to, debating or cross-examining their opponent(s). Passion is different than aggression, you can be passionate about a topic without being aggressive or belittling the opposing viewpoint.

I expect participants to debate or speak on the actual topic or question not build an argument based on unrelated issues or an outrageous premise. Citation of relevant and recent sources are appreciated and generally act to strengthen arguments.

Your speaking must be articulate enough for me to understand, even when spreading

I generally will not disclose round winners at the conclusion of the round, as I need time to refer to notes, compile scores and determine the winner.

Leah Frautschy (Lee-uh Frow-chee)

Paradigm for BQ:

If you have a framework, please explain it and why it matters. I like sign posts and clear taglines.

I do not like spreading, as it is difficult for me to process as quickly as you speak. If I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based on the arguments. If you do speak more quickly, please speak clearly and enunciate.

I don’t mind (and often encourage) passion, but I prefer you to convey your arguments in a respectful way.

It’s fine to argue about definitions, but please don’t make it the entire debate. It’s so boring.

Experience

I am a new Speech and Debate coach, so I am still learning the ins and outs of each event. Feel free to clarify times, norms, or format for your event if you would like to. I have been teaching English for 10 years, so I know a great argument when I hear it.

What I like to see

I look for organization, logical arguments, and compelling examples. Dynamics in your pace, tone, and expressions are crucial. Being pointed but respectful during cross x is important! I prefer a roadmap and, ultimately, I am looking for the most logical well well-developed framework in debates.

What I don't like to see

I do not like to see overly aggressive behavior in cross x, logical fallacies, or extremism on either side. I do not enjoy speakers who fall into a monotone and expressionless script. Help me feel connected and passionate about your case!

Experience:

Language Arts, Debate Coach, Master's Degree in Technology and Education.

Overall Paradigm:

1. Stand firmly (both metaphorically and literally). Be careful of drunken-sailor syndrome.
2. Do not use notes. Being memorized is always better. (For Interps, not Debates)
3. Use cited evidence to support claims.
4. Use proper grammar and pronounce words correctly.
5. Ask questions that further the debate in cross-x

POLICY PARADIGM: (drop-down for LD and PF)

Spreading: If you don't say something in the round, it isn't part of the round. Additionally, only what I understand counts as being said. Your shared evidence files do not count if you don't get around to saying what is written there.

Kritiks: identify the relevance to the topic before your rebuttal. Example: Religious freedom is not a racism issue so don't try to identify the whole religious freedom argument as not worthy of arguing because you get to say the word racism.

LD PARADIGM:

Spreading: I will not listen to spewing. If I can't understand you, you aren't competing.

Topicality: The quality of your debate will be judged by presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique. In other words, if you must spend more time dedicated to showing why your points are part of the topic instead of why they are more valid than the points of your opponent, you are not on topic.

Theory: Just saying that you win because such-and-such doesn't mean you actually win. Prove your argument is right with valid evidence.

Kritik: Doesn't belong in Lincoln Douglas. If you intend to win based on the idea that you shouldn't be debating something, you won't.

Framework: You should use it. I will be able to flow better if you address items in the order you deem most valuable.

PF PARADIGM:

Not yet identified separately. See LD paradigm for best modality application in PF.