Hutzell,+Darcie

Type in the content of your page here.

I have coached LD debate for 3 years, and was a winning high school LD debater

Novice:

I am not crazy about speed if you're not clear. I also don't disrupt debate by announcing clear, if you see me not flowing, it's because I can't understand you. I may, if you're grossly unclear, say something once. But seriously, if you want me to judge you fairly, slow down.

I am also not crazy about theory. I like debate about the resolution, not about debate. If abuses occur, then yes, they should be brought to light. I do wish there was less theory in LD, but clearly that's not the case, but again, in novice debate, you don't often hear theory until the end of the year.

Varsity:

I am traditional when it comes to judging debate. I don't love the way debate is heading, meaning counterplans, solvency, that sort of thing, but if it's a well reasoned argument, fine. I love clash in debate, I don't love when time is wasted. Basically, know your case, listen to your opponent, make well reasoned arguments, and you should be fine.

Speed:

If I can't understand you, I will tell you one time. Then I stop flowing, and likely will not weigh your arguments if they're not on my flow. I am a traditionalist, see above about novice debate.

Off case arguments are ok, I guess, but they have to be well argued. The problem I've seen with off case lately, is that rather than being off case, they're just additonal contentions. Don't label something as off case if it really isn't, because often that leads to a theory debate or time skew, which is not fun to listen to.

Again, I like debaters who debate case, and V/C. We decide on these resolutions so we don't have to hear the same deon/util args we hear all the time. And if you're going for deon/util or any other major philosophy, make sure you know it. I have a degree in philosophy, and nothing bothers me more than the bending of the util/deon arguments to fit whatever it is you're trying to achieve. Stock cases have merit.

POLICY:

I don't typically judge policy, and I am generally ok with reasonable speed. I like stock issue voting, and will not vote on silly, blippy arguments, nor will I vote on the K. I basically vote on why plan/counterplan is better than the status quo. I As you can see, I'm an LD judge and coach, but have some experience in policy debate. I know what the issues are, and spell out your voters.