About me:

I am the congressional debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA.

I graduated in 2023 from East High School in Des Moines, IA.

I competed in Congressional Debate my Junior and Senior year of high school, during this time I was a 1x State Champion, 2x NSDA Nationals Qualifier, 2x State Championship Runner up, and a finalist in multiple National Circuit & TOC tournaments.

I will try my best to give good feedback for speakers and PO's, and will judge anyone (including my own competitors) fairly.

For everyone:

Try your best! Even if you are a novice I can truly appreciate it when people try in a round, you can only improve if you try your best.

Be kind and respectful. I can appreciate aggressive competitors but you should be able to tell the difference between aggressive debate and just being rude.

Most importantly have fun!

Congress:

1st Aff: This is one of 2 speeches that I am okay with not being as extemporaneous as other speeches. However, this is not an excuse to read the speech straight from your laptop or notepad, still try to have good eye contact and don't spend 3 minutes reading verbatim.

1st Neg: This is the other speech I am a little lenient with not being extemporaneous, but this speech needs to have some rebuttal. I expect you to spend most of your speech laying out your case against the bill, but start rebutting the Aff in your speech.

Following Speeches:These should be mostly extemporaneous and should be rebutting the other sides argument. I will always appreciate new information being introduced to the round and do not be afraid to do so. DO NOT be redundant! I will not give you a good speech score if your speech is essentially the same as other competitors.

Questioning: I highly urge you to use Direct Questioning over indirect, it adds so much more to the round and adds a real element to debate over indirect. I like aggressive questioning too, If a speech has a flaw that you can use in questioning to help your side, use it. Use your time wisely and ask good questions.

Presiding:If you can make the round run really smoothly and have little issues with rules or dealing with any issues, I will rank you highly. I PO'd at least 1 round at almost all my senior year tournaments, got really good feedback at national tournaments for PO'ing and can truly can appreciate a good PO. This also means that I will give PO's good feedback, however if you stumble through the round and ask the Parliamentarian for help a lot, this will drop your ranking. If you have any questions about PO'ing outside of round feel free to ask me.

Overall:Use good arguments, use your 3 minutes really well. I really appreciate good speech delivery too, not just good argumentation, so have emotion and do your best. If you have any questions for me feel free to ask me outside of round.

For Congressional Debate, I judge each individual speech on three main categories: organization, arguments, and delivery. I give two speaker points for each category.

For organization, I look for a clear introduction that briefly states your key ideas, clear transitions between those ideas, and a conclusion that restates your key points.

For arguments, I look for the introduction of new arguments or elaborations on arguments that have already been made that bring new information to the argument, refutation of arguments from the opposing side, and evidence to back all of your claims. It is beneficial if you reference your fellow senators by name when elaborating or refuting ideas.

For delivery, I look for eye contact, clarity, and rate.

Debate Judging Paradigm

Experience Level: With over ten years of experience coaching and judging high school speech and debate, including various formats such as Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Congressional debate, I bring a wealth of knowledge to the judging table. While I have primarily judged Congressional debate in the last two years, I am well-versed in the nuances of argumentation and public speaking across multiple formats.

Rate of Delivery and Use of Jargon: I prefer that debaters define technical jargon and acronyms upon their first usage, but subsequent use is acceptable as long as clarity is maintained. While I can comprehend brisk delivery rates, I value the balance between effective communication and analytical rigor. Rushed delivery compromising essential elements of public speaking is a concern.

Note-Taking Approach: During the round, I prioritize note-taking on key arguments and rebuttals. I maintain an aggressive flow for the first two-thirds of the debate, focusing on capturing the essence of arguments. In the final one-third, I hone in on unique insights or turns presented by the debaters.

Argument versus Style: While I prioritize argumentation, I recognize the importance of style in communication. I am unsympathetic to debaters who discount performance aspects entirely, especially in advanced tournaments or rounds. Eye contact, inflection, appropriate pauses, and empathy can enhance the persuasive impact of arguments.

Assessment Criteria: When assessing a debate, I consider several criteria, including the originality of thought, organization and cohesiveness, evidence and logic, decorum, and the thoughtful response to cross-examination questions. Debaters demonstrating evidence of research, original thought, and credibility are particularly impressive to me.

In-Round Conduct Expectations: I expect debaters to demonstrate evidence of preparation, a depth of knowledge for the topic, and professionalism in their interactions with other debaters or senators. Conduct that aligns with the standards of respectful discourse is paramount.

Pronouns: she / her

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, and grandstanding (my def = talking just to talk / pontificate).

Background: I have been teaching for 25 years in Iowa and Texas, and I have been Hoover's head debate coach for several years (and judged several years prior to that). I also have legal assistant training; this, too, informs my perspective as a judge.

I teach speech, argumentation, and persuasion daily – same concepts, different venue.

I’m here because I prize lifelong learning, and I find these experiences are fun, rewarding, and add insight into both my classroom teaching and debate coaching. I hope you, too, find these experiences fun and rewarding and that you learn and improve from each interaction… even if you don't win your round. :)

What I look for in a PF round:

I view my role in the round mainly as a trained observer and judge as teams do their work; I prefer teams to time themselves (and report the time) and I will rarely interrupt, direct, or ask for a card. However, I will note called cards and how they are subsequently used. If cards aren’t called or if points are left unchallenged, my assumption is your team agrees to their use – barring fundamentally untrue things ("racism good"). Note also that teams should extend the card’s argument and not just shorthand the author’s name.

Teams should independently, explicitly, at the beginning, address and agree upon how the round should be weighed; if not, my assumption is cost-benefit analysis.

I like roadmaps and prefer clear signposting throughout the round as these features allow all parties to be on the same page.

I can follow moderate speed – especially if it’s because you truly have a lot of strong links and evidence to present -- but if you go so fast that I miss your point, that’s on you. Same if you’re spreading or spending a lot of time talking but not actually saying anything, such as entire rounds spent on agreeing on definitions or other minutia.

Additionally, jargon doesn’t impress me; I spend my days breaking down jargon and complex topics for students, so I expect you to practice this real-world skill as well. Seeing your ability to adapt, contextualize, and show mastery without needing to resort to jargon is key for me.

During cross, ask questions to which you legitimately want answers and don't steamroll your opponents by interjecting so they can’t respond.

In your final focus, I prefer the focus to be on your case -- what are the main voters in the round and why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, why you should win, etc. – instead of your opponent’s case.