Email is jamescraiglong@gmail.com

History/Current Position: I competed 2011-2014 for Evanston Township High School (Chicago suburbs) on the national circuit in PF attending tournaments such as Harvard, Glenbrooks, Dowling, West Des Moines Valley, Mini-apple, and Blake. I reached the final round of Dowling and Blake and made it to the round of 32 at NSDA nationals. I currently am a social studies teacher and debate coach at Boerne-Champion High School in Boerne, Texas.

LD Debate - I am okay with and will vote on any argument. I started off more trad initially coming from PF 10 years ago, but I am starting to appreciate the progressive style of debate. Please feel free to hit me with K's, Pics, CPs and theory - I want to learn more about them. However, make sure to explain them super super clearly especially K's (I've only judged one so far and it was very hard to follow) and theory (also don't just go for this try and win under other conditions). Assume I know nothing about those kinds of arguments because I don't. Now tricks may be a different story, I don't really know what they are but from what I do I'm not a fan so I wouldn't recommend them in front of me. The one thing is I can't understand spreading. If you want to spread your case - I can deal with that as long as I have the doc. But don't spread analytics and to be honest I'd really prefer you didn't spread anything out side of case. I like a mix of line by line debate and framework debate. Try and give yourself as many win conditions as possible - both under your fw and theirs, you win even if they win this argument etc. One good way to do this is weigh your arguments.

PF Debate - I do not think theory or K's or things of that nature belong in PF debate and I will not accept spreading in PF (whereas I do in LD). PF was designed to be a lay alternative to LD and Policy (nothing wrong with progressive arguments, I just think PF is supposed to be a place for trad/lay style debate).

The way I vote is I see what has been mostly cleanly extended throughout the round either by the opponent dropping or failing to adequately respond and then I will weigh whatever arguments have been extended so make sure to explain why the arguments you are bringing to the final speech matter more than your opponents (don't just rely on saying their argument has been refuted, it's better to also say that even if their argument flows through - you still win. Ideally do this weighing using terms like probability, magnitude, or timeframe (but please don't just say these words without adding any explanation or context - you must explain why you outweigh on probability or magnitude, etc.)