Feinstein,+Melissa

Melissa Feinstein


 * Background:** Four years of high school debate in Congress (via ICDA/Illinois Congressional Debate Association), as well as a brief but successful stint in PF. Harvard National Congress champions in 2006 and individual semifinalist in 2007, in addition to state semifinalist through the HS years. Also a major booster of JSA - Junior State of America - since it changed my teenage debate nerd life for the better. Highland Park (IL) High School '07. Northwestern University '11. Brown University MA in history '12. National-Louis University MAT '14. I am now a social studies teacher, living my passion! Stay in school, kids.

I have taught PF before, taught and judged LD, and participated in and later judged Congress. I consider myself decently well versed in those forms of debate, though I want to be even better versed in LD and PF ASAP. To this end, I judge debate tournaments whenever I can. So far, this has included local tournaments and even some national circuit ones such as Dowling. Asterisk-ed bullet points indicate thoughts that apply to my judging in a larger sense, not just for one form of debate exclusively.

__**PF Thoughts**__ Public Forum/PF (calling it PoFo hurts my soul) is a dynamic form of debate, since the topic changes so often and reflects current issues in a way that forces debaters to be active, engaged citizens. I don't have too many rules for judging PF, but...
 * Be nice. Don't let any CX, especially the GCX, turn into a contest of who can be rudest. You don't win any points by being the loudest or angriest. There's much more dignity inherent in standing up for yourself and your partner in a way that doesn't a) scream for attention or b) drag others down so you can get ahead.
 * Make sure you've read the resolution carefully. Don't miss key points. Don't take definitions for granted! I'd rather have debates that are too definition-heavy (within reason) than the opposite. Remember the refugee topic? It was full of opportunities to use definitions to your advantage.
 * *Signpost like it's going out of style. Please don't say things like "My next contention is...economy bad." That makes you sound like Tarzan. Help your speeches sound fluid and organized by giving them the clear signposts they deserve!

__**LD Thoughts**__ Admittedly, I'm somewhat new to LD, though I'm doing my best to play catch-up. The philosophical orientation of this form of debate is often esoteric in a way that can frustrate people, though I think it's ultimately rewarding. My thoughts...
 * This is not groundbreaking, but don't forget how important it can be to win the value/value criterion (or standard) debate. I really prioritize that as a sign that you understand the resolution and your own case, perhaps better than your opponent does!
 * Along with this, I take detailed notes in my flows, so I refer to them when coming up with my RFD. I hate how nebulous a debate can be - and how much it does NOT resemble a true debate - if there's little clash.
 * Policy/CX is a great form of debate, but it's not one that I judge or even pretend to understand, particularly in terms of speed. I don't mind some speed, especially since I am known to talk quickly! But policy speed is not something I want in an LD round. You don't need to be reading a children's book, but please avoid policy speed within this medium of debate. I want to see some attention paid to all parts of rhetoric, including delivery itself, so don't neglect this. I place a premium on engaging tone - does every sentence sound the same? Is your speech choppy enough to suggest that you are reading it for the first time then and there? Do you forget to enunciate, making my own flowing near-impossible? Avoid these things.
 * *Be courteous and professional in your CX. Don't cut each other off unnecessarily or shout over each other. It's rude. You're debating, but you're still operating within norms of personal decency. You don't get points from me for snipping at each other and trying to bring your opponent down - instead, you might find the opposite to be true.
 * This applies to body language, too. Contemptuousness and arrogance are never a good look, and they often manifest themselves more obviously than the debater thinks.
 * However, do NOT use any technique (or even any vocab word or philosophy) just to use it. It will look transparent. Don't obliquely reference a theory and then never discuss it again. Show me that you understand it in depth.
 * I'm very wary of meta discussions, e.g. turning a debate over gun control into a discussion of debate itself. Don't do this unless you can commit to it and connect it.
 * Don't end an NR speech with tons of time left. Don't do this for any speech.
 * *Your CX questions should not be rude, but they should be advantageous for you! Avoid softball and clarification questions.
 * This will not be shocking, either, but the best speeches I've heard directly and explicitly relate their points and sub-points to the given value and criterion. This shows your organizational skills and level of insight. As a teacher, I'm a fan of seeing those skills demonstrated, what can I say...

__**Congress Thoughts**__ Congress was a transformative experience for me, so I have A Lot of Feelings™ about it.
 * *Signpost!!! Please don't forget this. It shows organization and the ability to plan ahead.
 * An interesting quote can help. But an overly long-winded one that meanders and winds up having little to do with your topic...not so good. The same is true for one that takes up a huge chunk of your speech! Extra points if you can tie your intro into your conclusion. :)
 * As you'd do in any form of debate, clash and refutation are key. If you get up in the middle of the round and make a speech that barely references any that came before you, I cannot in good conscience give you a high score. Good clash is what makes debate, well, debate!
 * Be respectful and professional. Don't forget different motions. Don't just shout down the PO and all start talking...that's not how a debate chamber should run.
 * This extends to CX. Ask strategic questions, but don't be rude.
 * I get that strategy extends beyond the realm of giving speeches, but I'm not a big fan of standing for a mediocre speech just to block someone who could've gotten a meaningful speech in.
 * *Delivery is important, along with content. Remember to speak carefully and enunciate, use hand motions in a way that feels comfortable and supports your point (no shame if you [|do this]), avoid fillers, and be confident!
 * Show that you understand the bill. It might be about a topic that's well known, but the bill itself could be very specific and have elements that you might not know about without careful reading.
 * *It can be a tense atmosphere at times...I do not mind humor!


 * Good luck! I love judging debate and giving back to a field that's already given so much to me. :)**