Yastremski,+David

David Yastremski Director - Ridge High School 10+ years experience coaching and judging I'm writing this with the best of intention for all coaches, debaters, and those parents of debaters who like to see their children happy. **In the current age, I'm considered a //very traditional flow// judge within LD arenas. I am more frequently found in Public Forum and Congress rounds these days. I really love judging but am not able to judge progressive rounds.**


 * I do recognize the intent of the resolution when considering the arguments. I often lean toward a pragmatic application of the resolution. I rarely vote on theory arguments; therefore, I don't suggest running them -- or please consider striking me if you 'cannot' debate or 'choose' to debate without them. I also cannot handle today's version of 'speed' (If you would like to try your 'speed' on me, let me know before the round, and I'm more than happy give you feedback prior to the round starting. I won't give you any feedback after you start speaking).**

I do expect and reward debate on values, hence I expect a criterion providing a clear standard of measurement and weighed heavily throughout the round. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within that particular context. Therefore, utopian or hypothetical worlds must be warranted as //reasonable// within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. All evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. I'm not a fan of jargon either (Util is an economic term and Deon is a name), so please explain the concept so I can correctly apply it to your analysis and flow it properly. Again, I stress, the more theoretical the argument or technical the jargon, the more difficult for me to conceptualize and flow which may lead to a misinterpretation of your argument, leading to great frustration for me during the round. The abridged version? I lean toward pragmatic interpretation of the resolutions with strong empirical warrants.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the standards. I do appreciate **clear signposting** throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. I will not give below a 25 unless you're rude and/or abusive. **And, after witnessing some recent rounds at prestigious tournaments, any use of language or demeanor that I, a 40-something year old teacher interprets as disrespectful to the integrity of the event /tournament, or inappropriate within an academic context, will receive a 20 (fair warning).**

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach LD in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored.