Prescott,+Jeanine

Jeanine Prescott Teacher/Coach (Interp, LD, PF, and Congress) Degrees: B.A in Political Science B.A. in Philosophy B.A. in Speech-Language Pathology (Fall 2012)

I have been a debate coach in South Florida for the past 3 years. Prior to that, I competed in college in a few different circuits. I also competed in academic games in high school. Debaters should provide me with a mechanism for evaluating the round and explain why it preferences voting for the arguments they are winning.Standards: It is best if I am given something explicit. I prefer a traditional V/C structure, since it is the best way for me to evaluate impacts. I view the links between the criterion, value, and resolution as the warrants. My default stance (which is contestable) is that the value selected should be the one most inherent to the resolution, e.g. ‘democracy’ if the resolution is questioning whether democracy is best served by a strict separation of church and state. I tend to view the criterion as a filter for assessing which impacts matter in the round. If multiple standards are emerging on the flow, explain what order they should be evaluated in. When I have to intervene, I am typically forced to either use my own beliefs or default to the standard that I think is most pertinent to testing the truth of the resolution as a statement (I generally believe this is the purpose of the round).Arguments: I enjoy smart substantive debate. To be considered, an argument should be warranted and impacted and both of these components should be extended in each subsequent speech. I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand the first time it is presented. It will help you a lot if you weigh arguments using the specific language of the standard. I prefer voters in your last speeches to help with my decision-making process. Lastly, do not use 10 contentions in order to disadvantage your opponent- that is abusive and unnecessary. Do policy if that is what you want. I am looking for logic and rational arguments. Speed: I prefer that rounds take place at a roughly conversational pace. I believe that debate is a communicative activity, so I usually won’t call your cases/cards after the round and try to piece together what was said (the exception tends to be when the wording of a card becomes a crucial source of clash or I think it was my fault for not hearing you). I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU SPREAD. LD IS NOT 1% POLICY, although some coaches try to be sneaky by using this as a tactic. If I drop my pen, you are probably losing the round.Theory: I view theory as necessary. As a topic progresses, you should have substantive answers to specific positions beyond generic conditionality arguments. Since I have a degree in philosophy, you don’t have to waste time explaining basic constructs like deontology or utilitarianism; just make sure you clarify the concept for your opponent in order to create a robust CX. LD IS NOT PF, so there is no need for a million cards to prove a concept or theory.