Maakestad,+Clare

BIO: I was an LD debater at Millard West from 2005-2008. I was the assistant LD coach for Millard North from 2009-2011. I have been judging intermittently since then. I have a masters degree in sociology from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and I currently work in the nonprofit sector in the area of food sovereignty, as well as teaching sociology courses at local universities.

PARADIGM: I prefer a more “traditional” style of debate, with an emphasis on well-warranted, resolutional arguments that are linked back to the standards of the round and presented in a coherent and ultimately persuasive manner. I will listen to and vote on nearly any argument that supports your side of the resolution so long as it is supported with logic and evidence.

PREFERENCES: In order for me to extend your arguments across the flow, you need to articulate the claim and warrant, rather than just card names (I frequently miss author names on my flow). I prefer debaters to speak in a clear, persuasive manner. This means you should stand during speeches and cross examination if you want good speaks. I prefer less speedy delivery because I may miss some of your arguments on the flow if you’re too quick. It is in your best interest not to use high speeds in front of me. If I am unable to understand you, I will only provide nonverbal feedback, as it is not my place as a judge to speak during the round. If it’s not on my flow, I can’t vote on it so make sure you are emphasizing the most important parts of your advocacy in all speeches. On theory, kritiks, and other policy-style arguments, I just don’t have that much experience with these types of arguments. I will listen to it, but I need to you explain why it is worth voting on. Please do the work for me: tell me what to vote on and why. Crystallization and worlds-comparison are your friends in the NR/2AR.