Hi! My name is Amy (she/her), I am a senior at Ridge, and I do Extemp

General Notes:

• Treat me as your average lay judge, I am well versed on current events but I probably don’t know the details of the current debate topic, so assume I don’t know anything about the topic
• I cannot handle speed. Do not speak fast, always speak at a conversational speed. The faster you are the more likely I am to miss an argument/point/evidence
• I will take notes during the round but given that I don’t do debate, I won’t be that detailed on the flow so please tell me which argument you are on and be clear
• I pay attention to presentation, delivery, how you interact with your arguments and your opponent’s arguments, and how you build the narrative of your case
• Always be polite to your opponents during the round. I will dock speaks/drop you if you are discriminatory towards your opponents
• Please keep your own time and keep track of your opponent’s time

How I evaluate the round:

• I will vote for the team I believe has persuaded me the most
• It is extremely important you explain your argument clearly and why your argument is the most important in the round
• Debate jargon means nothing to me!!!

+0.5 speaks if you bring me food/drink

+0.5 speaks if you make a good Taylor Swift reference

Affiliations:
2010-24: Lakeville North High School (MN)
2024-: Edina High School (MN)

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In that time, my students qualified to NSDA Nationals and the TOC. Since 2011 I have primarily coached limited prep and platform Speech events and some Congress. I taught at Gustavus Speech and PF camps when those were still around and have been teaching Extemp Speaking at ISD since 2018.

When I coached Debate, I preferred a faster, more technical approach, but time away from active coaching means I've not kept up with how the events have evolved. If fast and technical are your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no promises that I can entirely. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so please watch and adjust. Chances are I'm unfamiliar with topic-specific lit or whatever critical lit is currently in style so you may need to do more connecting of the dots to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, please feel free to ask before the round.

I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: Policy debate, LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp.

I coached from 1999 through July 2019, when I retired from the classroom. Now I do consulting for students who want private coaching and for school districts as well as for UIL.

I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know.

My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. Know the difference in a claim with a citation and a warrant. If nothing explains why it's true, I'm not likely to buy the argument.

I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.

I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate the round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. In LD and PF, the HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens, in policy debate, this is the link from the plan to the topic on aff or the CP or simply delinking on the neg. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W.

In LD and PF, I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own.

I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist.

I want to see clash from the negative.

I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.