Strong,+Harry

Head Coach at The Potomac School. I like a traditional approach to LD. I will judge on who protected their standards if there is nothing else who hang my hat on. I expect clash. I hate debate where the debaters run from each other and hide. I also don't like a lot of gamesmanship. If your opponent asks you to detail the framework looking for traps: be honest. Don't expect much from me if you hide bombs and explode them after your opponent made a reasonable effort to clear those issues up in CX. I don't mind speed but if you use policy-like speed be clear and enunciate! Slurred cases will not help you with me. Have judged LD for 15 years now. I will maintain a basic flow. I'm not into 13 contentions and the like. Theory is fine as long as you tie the theory to something being run in the debate--but theory just for theory sake won't matter on my flow. In a nutshell, I want to judge a debate not abusive behavior.

PF: I want clash-don't run from each other. I expect reasonable speed but not too fast as this is a debate meant to be heard by the public. Be polite to each other, please. Extend arguments. Debate is not about the best case, but the development of the argument after the cases are in play. Please don't, in your final speech, claim that your opponents failed to address something in your case that you never talked about in the debate (other than to read it in case). I judge PF based on flow, based on presentation, based on overall argumentation, etc.