Rosen,+Marianne

I am the Debate Director for a school in California and have been teaching argument and debate at the college level (and, since 2007, at the high school level) since 1981. My passion is policy debate, but I also enjoy teaching, coaching, and judging all debate and speech events.

FOR POLICY: I'm open to just about anything, including T, Kritiks, CPs, etc. In fact, I really like CPs--if they are clear and well-researched. I look at the net benefits of a CP. I'm very particular about evidence, and I appreciate when you clearly and slowly articulate the author's name. That said, I don't mind spreading, just don't get sloppy and slur your words. I flow quickly, and I think you should, too. Don't waste your time in CX asking questions about the structure of your opponent's arguments. Do a better job at listening and flowing, because I take organizational skills into consideration when judging you. Please don't make impacts that are so far-fetched I can't buy into them. If you've absolutely got to run with nuclear war and destruction of the human race, at least make clear and distinct links. Similarly, I appreciate clear disads. Politics DAs are good, too, as long as you have (once again) strong links and evidence. Make sure your disads are specific; I don't like generic ones. I'll pay more attention to a disad if you clearly point out how you compete with an aff advantage. Also, I'm a big fan of voting issues. Narrow your case down for me and make clear to me--throughout the round--why you should win. I don't like to be bombarded with lots of voting issues; I want you to know why you should win right from the start and make that clear to me throughout the round. Remember to be polite and respectful during the round; I will really show my displeasure with your demeanor in the speaker points I award. No smirks, no rudeness, no extremely loud voices. Finally, I want you to have fun! Don't let my age and the fact that I look like a lay (parent) judge fool you; sometimes we are your best judges! We bring a long-standing respect for Policy as well as an understanding of more recent developments in Policy debate. While some coaches may not enjoy Policy, I have nothing but the highest level of respect for this form of debate, and I look forward to learning something from each round I judge. One last thing: while I know there has been a lot of discussion about the value or spreading, I actually appreciate someone who can spread (in a clear way), think logically, assess the key points quickly, and accurately identify why he/she has the upper hand.

FOR LD: Don't spread. I really enjoy LD and want to see a balance between argument and eloquence. I tend to look at three features of an LD case. First, I listen for the degree to which your speech is organized and clear. I dislike disorganized LD cases, or LD cases that sound more like Policy b/c you try to fit so much in that your opponent has to flow really quickly. I'd rather hear less information that makes sense, than more information that just seems to be piled on. Second, I want to know that YOU know your case. I am easily frustrated by debaters who appear to be reading something written by someone else. You should know your case and believe in your case as though your life depended on it. For me, LD should be passionate as well as logical. Third, I evaluate the way you provide voting issues that link back to the standards you set forth. This is extremely important to me.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM: I tend to be more of a communications judge with Public Forum. I think a team that looks like they're not only having fun with this event, but also provides me with logical and well-supported reasons for voting in its favor will come out ahead. I like current statistical information, but don't offer the stats in a "laundry list." Make sure you are also knowledgeable about current events, trends, issues. I also tend to prefer speakers who do not wind up shouting during cross-fire. Keep things polite.

FOR CONGRESS: Please listen to what the other Senators are arguing and make sure you clash. Don't just read your speech because you think you have a great take on the bill or resolution. Listen to what others are saying and help create a round where there is clearly some debate going on. Also, please don't just repeat what someone else on your side just said. Finally, really, really, really know current events. Nothing is more disappointing than listening to a speaker who presents outdated or incorrect evidence.