Scheller,+Brock

**Affiliation:** Strake Jesuit

I am a first-year assistant debate coach for LD who is new to judging and still getting familiar with the terminology and norms of progressive debate. Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

**Overall:** Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you. If you read a patently ridiculous argument and your opponent calls you out, I will probably vote against you. Give me a standard/value criterion so I know how to evaluate arguments or I will have to intervene. If you do not give me this, at least give me a weigh to evaluate impacts. Tell me why arguments are important and why I need to ignore any arguments.  **Framing:** I will prefer quality of arguments over quantity. I default to truth-testing, so if you try comparative worlds you will need to justify that explicitly.  **Speaker Points:** I start at 28 speaks for a decently clear performance with no hangups, and move up or down based on speaking skill, articulate and clear expression, respectful tone, manageable speed, and overall formation of a coherent strategy. I will give you low speaks if you are rude, interrupt your opponent without just cause, mumble unintelligibly, speak too softly to hear clearly, or speak faster than your doctor can understand. 30 speaks are easily attainable, as are 25 (e.g., If I discover you have miscut a card, then I will drop you).

**Speed and Clarity:** I dislike spreading: I want to be in a position to follow your argument. If you speak too quickly or in a way I cannot follow, I will say “Slow” or “Clear,” and after trying twice to get you down to a manageable speed or intelligible English, I might give up and stop flowing. I can't vote for an argument not on my flow.  **Cross-Examination:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I am fine with flex prep. Do not be disrespectful or interrupt unduly or I will lower your speaks. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Philosophy:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I would much rather hear you run arguments you understand and can clearly and convincingly explain than throw in philosophical ideas and terms as window dressing. I have no patience for arcane, unjustified, or jargon-ridden arguments, especially when philosophical terms are used incorrectly. I get frustrated when I hear philosophical arguments twisted, butchered, or tossed out like readymade Frisbees when they do not fit the context. I especially dislike when less-than-transparent philosophers are name-dropped or taken as authorities without explanation and defense (see Baudrillard, Derrida, Nancy, Lacan, etc.). If you use philosophy in round, I highly recommend that you make sure what you say is clear, accurate, and suitably defended. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Kritik/Theory/Topicality:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I am new to LD debate, so these approaches are well out of my comfort zone - especially K. If you take one of these approaches, know you need to explain all the layers of your approach carefully and plausibly. If you run multiple offs, please weigh between them and explicitly tell me which one comes first. I am not a fan of high theory and find it counterintuitive, so if you attempt such an approach, make sure you make an accessible and convincing case for it. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please no non-topical affs. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Counterplan/Disads:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">You absolutely must weigh and have competition! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Tricks:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I dislike tricks. I might have to vote for you if you are obviously winning the trick and there is no response, but in that case it will be a low-point win. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Miscellaneous:** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Extinction impacts need to be done really well since I reflexively find them improbable and tenuous. If you run an extinction argument, please do lots of weighing!