Northrop,+Michaela

I competed as a high school policy debater and college parli debater in the mid-to-late 90s. I've coached policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to faster circuit style since 1999. I currently coach policy debate at Leland High School in San Jose.

[Coaching Details: I was the head speech and debate coach from 2000-2003 at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (local and some circuit), head coach from 2003-2006 at Chantilly H.S. in the D.C. metro (local and some circuit - Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton), and an assistant coach for policy debate at Henry Sibley H.S. and Wayzata H.S. (local and some circuit) in Minnesota from 2005-2008 (moderate circuit). After a few years' hiatus at home with the kiddos, I have returned to coaching multiple events (speech, public forum, and policy - but primarily policy) at Leland High School in San Jose.]

While my wheelhouse would be straight up policy rounds (a strong case & disad debate, CPs totally cool) or seeing one well-developed K which the neg commits to and uses to recontextualize case, I'm certainly open to hearing whatever you have to say.

However, I don't have a strong default for sequencing arguments or much exposure to performance-based rounds, so...

1) please clearly articulate criteria for how you believe those clashes of advocacies should be resolved with strong warrants as to what level of impact / implication evaluation comes first and why. tagline advocacy won’t be enough. cross-x will matter.

2) attempt to escape your own in-round perspective enough to spend sufficient time making comparative claims.

**General Thoughts / Views on Debate:**

I am still a believer that the aff’s advocacy must be topical and must not be a moving target, regardless of the level of justification or format of argumentation being applied by the aff.

T - default to competing interpretations with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation but open to your structures; K affs should think about how they will impact turn education args

Theory - enjoy it but cannot be blipped - I don’t vote on tagline theory debates, even if conceded; not inclined to revert to status quo or judge kick unless 2nr advocates it and 2ar doesn’t win that I shouldn’t

Quality evidence is important but quality thinking is even better. Strong, contextualized analytics easily beat bad evidence.

Left to my own devices, I’m largely a critic of argument. Be sound. Access warrants of your own and your opponents’. Care about speaking, cross-ex, and advocacy. All of these things are rewarded and preferred.