Ginsburg,+Fonda

**What to know about my experience:** I debated for 4 years in high school at Maine East. I have coached in Chicago for 8 years at the following schools: Phillips High School, King College Prep, and Phoenix Military Academy. My teams have competed at outside tournaments like ISTA, The Glenbrooks, Blake, Iowa Caucus, Michigan, Harvard, Maine East, and Marquette. When I coached at Phillips, my team won city championships in our conference (when in 2005 each separate conference in the Chicago Debate League had a city champion). I have also taught at the Chicago Debate Summer Institute and have worked as a support coach for the CDL Middle School League.

**__My judging paradigm:__** ** Basic delivery preferences (not trying to sound rude, but some debaters really need to learn how to work on these things and record themselves to see how they sound): ** 1) Do NOT mumble when you read your warrants. That sounds horrible, and I will lower your speaker points. They should be read at the same volume as your tags so I can hear what your cards are saying. I'm not going to simply assume that your tags match your warrants. 2) Raising your voice an octave higher than your natural speaking voice when you're spreading sounds ridiculous and it's a crappy delivery style. I do not want to hear Mickey Mouse. 3) If you can’t spread without gasping, then you shouldn’t be spreading. If you sound ridiculous, I will lower your speaker points. It takes away from what you're saying, no matter how extraordinary you are as a debater.

** Rude Behavior: ** 1) Rude behavior to your opponents (i.e. snickering at them, badgering them in cx, etc.) or to myself (i.e. arguing w/ me after the round about my decision) is unacceptable. This leads to the lowering of speaker points. There is no reason for conceit or rudeness.

** DAs: ** 1) Effective link story is essential. 2) Don't forget to answer all turns.

** CPs: ** 1) Consult CPs are just a waste of time in my opinion, although I will listen to them. If you can sell me on it, I'll vote on it. 2) Condo bad/dispo bad blocks should be a last resort. Let's stick to the actual issues of the round instead of time skews.

** Ks: ** 1) Condo bad/dispo bad blocks should be a last resort. Let's stick to the actual issues of the round instead of time skews. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">2) Make sure you understand the K you're running. Just like DAs, I want to hear a good and specific link story. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">3) Does your K solve through a specific course of action, or does it simply sit back and do nothing? Prove to me that your solvency isn't just hypothetical.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">** T: ** <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">1) T is fine, up until the point of reasonability good/bad. That's when T is no longer evaluated in my decision. I'd rather focus my decision in things that matter. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">2) Neg teams that don't extend their standards and voters typically don't win on T.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">** Basic Preferences: ** <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">1) I want a clean, organized flow. That means I basically want to hear good clash, signposting, sticking to your roadmap, and you should explain all of your arguments well. (i.e. a pet peeve of mine is "Our impacts outweigh their harms." and then not explaining it. I don't buy what you don't sell. WHY do your impacts outweigh their harms?) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">2) If you tell me to extend a specific card, don’t just tell me the author. Remind me of what the card said and then tell my why it’s important to extend that card. I don't have every card from your 1AC or your 1NC memorized. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">3) I also don't care for tag team cx. The entire premise of debate is lost when you can't answer your own questions or when your partner needs your help to answer questions. Each one of you should be capable of standing on your own two feet without your partner’s help. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">4) Framework for running a case that has absolutely nothing to do w/ the topic (i.e. a performance aff) is a complete mockery of policy debate in my opinion. I am an old school policy debater and judge. Therefore I want to hear a debate round based on the topic. Realism bad has nothing to do w/ the topic. If you are running one of these cases, then you need to prove to me why your framework is the best framework in the round in addition to proving that not only do you have an actual policy, but that you **solve** for something through some type of course of action. Sitting back and evaluating the problem or making people aware that the problem exists is NOT action because you need to prove that this newfound consciousness WILL (not MAY) lead to action that will solve. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">5) ASPEC and the like are time skews in my opinion. They do not interest me and I won't vote on them. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">6) Don't lie to me. For example, don't tell me your opponent conceded an argument when you and I both know that's simply not true. If you tell me they conceded something and it's on my flow, then there's a problem w/ your credibility in the round and it well affect your speaker points in that round. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">7) Ins and outs?? Seriously? Can you say "abuse?" You may as well leave your partner at home.