Beideck,+Bob

I have high school LD and PF experience, as well as some coaching and judging experience.

Things about my style: - I need to be able to follow your case (i.e. Roadmaps are important, signposting with spreading) - Don’t just pick a case for the sake of confusing your opponent, it needs to be pretty much topical - Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you - Viewing your opponent’s case doesn’t substitute for flowing - Don’t take your cards out of context, if the idea behind the card doesn’t support your case, then it’s probably not a good idea to use it, even if you can make a sentence work for you (while I won’t necessarily pick this out myself, if you opponent points it out, I will know and remember) - Extending arguments require you to give a reason with evidence/warrants (i.e. "non-unique" by itself isn't good enough) - Be polite (i.e. if you know that you are winning don't destroy your opponent, offensive language should add value if used) - I weigh arguments against each other, so keep track of important points that your opponent has presented a valid argument that counters it - I don't take CX into account (other than to give you pointers for next time) unless you bring it up in your speeches - I would rather see a few well-covered points than a bunch of poorly covered points - I'm big picture (key points matter more than defending and defeating every point/contention) - I like voters, they weigh heavily on my decision, and they should be your major arguments (you should pick your still standing, strong points) - I’m not a big fan of theoretical debates, I prefer debates with substantiated arguments.

I like a good debate and am generally very nice with speaker points to both sides when I see one.