Berthiaume,+Maggie

[|How to Pronounce "DeVos"]

Woodward Academy
Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present) Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011) College Debate — Dartmouth College High School Debate — Blake maggiekb@gmail.com

Education Topic
1. T Curriculum seems silly to me. I understand why people read it (and want it to exist), but hopefully it's not your best 2NR option very often. 2. The "basic" States CP is probably justified. Funding planks, fiating out of rollback, and ridiculous cost-sharing enterprises: not so much. 3. I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.")

Meta Comments
1. Please be nice. If you can’t be nice to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me. Ignore this and you will almost certainly not be pleased with your points. There is a fine line between competitive spirit and needless cruelty — know it. Repeatedly and annoyingly interrupting people while they are trying to answer your CX questions will lower your points.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could show to my students (or their parents, or my principal) with pride. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. I've become more aggressive about calling for clarity and more frustrated when that doesn't result in increased clarity by the debater who is speaking. Slow down and communicate — I don’t vote for arguments I couldn’t understand, and I don’t expect the other team to be able to answer arguments that I couldn’t flow either. Connect on meaningful arguments.

4. I strongly prefer that debaters conduct their own CXes. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), don't—or prefer someone else. See "Speech Documents" below.

6. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Students who seem like they’d rather be playing flash games make me wish that I’d stayed home too.

What does a good debate look like?
Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

Do you read evidence?
Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Do I have to be topical?
Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides are prepared for the debate. Affirmatives do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?
If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, reconsider. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate.

What about my generic critique?
Topic or plan specific critiques are certainly an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Critiques that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?
I do believe there is absolute defense and have voted on it more than once this season.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?
Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends. See "Speech Documents" below.

I have some questions about speech documents...
One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates //entirely// off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

How can I get more speaker points?
I've recently raised my scale to be more in line with debate norms ([|see 3NR Article] on the subject).

I am also implementing an Alderete-style flowing incentive: "If you keep a good flow, and show it to me after the round, I will give you up to an additional .5 speaker point if I agree that it is a good flow."