McCool,+Lauren

Education and Recognition Coordinator @ NSDA Des Moines, IA

Former Coach @ Myers Park (NC), Dowling Catholic (IA), DSM Roosevelt HS (IA) Debated for Liberty University 2005-2008 Last Updated 10/27/2017


 * Decorum/Style**: I strongly believe //(to borrow the brilliant wording of my friend Stephanie Garrett...)// that one of the most valuable aspects of a debate is communication. PLEASE keep this in mind when you’re in front of me – nothing grinds my teeth more than unclear, mumbling, very quiet and/or abrasive debaters. Effective communication and articulation about your arguments will get you way further than reading another card. I'm not OK with profanity, unless it is somehow integral to the argument you're making. Lastly, be cordial. I think rude, mean debaters make the activity really un-fun and miserable, and I will not hesitate at all to dock speaks for this. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ablest, xenophobic, etc. you will get abysmal speaks (if you don't lose the round all together). My threshold for what I consider to be racist/sexist/homophobic/ablest/xenophobic etc is really low.


 * Speed:** Slow down for tags and cites -- I flow on paper -- I listen fast but write slow.


 * Disclosure/Flashing cases:** I think we should all use the wiki. Disclosure of non-new arguments is good for education. For an argument to be new it must have not been read by any member of that schools team at any point in the season. I do not think that teams MUST flash their case. But, please, don't even try those strategies like darkening/tilting your screen or stapling your papers together -- I feel like these are shady moves and it will jeopardize your speaker points.


 * Speaker points:** I usually range from 26 (you made some major mistakes both as a speaker and debater) to 29.5 (wow you are amazing). I rarely give 30's. Clarity, well warranted arguments, and respect for those in the round is what makes your points increase. Disrespect, rudeness, mumbled speaking, disorganized argumentation, prep-stealing and general "shady-ness" are ways to lose points.


 * Kritiks:** I'm fine with kritiks, but I'm probably not as well versed in  as you, so make sure you provide clear and explicit articulations of the link, the impact, and your alternative. I generally dislike reject alternatives and links of omission. If your kritik tags are super long and full of buzz words and jargon -- slow down so that I can process what you're saying. Too many debaters use buzz words and pre-written overviews as a crutch, and think that because they're reading a kritik, they for whatever reason don't need to engage the line by line as much. This is a detrimental mistake in front of me.


 * Framework:** Framework is wildly important. It tells me my role in the debate and how I should make my decision of who won the debate -- after all this is in the end a competition. If you have reasons for me judging the round from a different (well warranted) view of point then make your case and we'll go from there -- its probably smart to say something like "the role of the ballot is...."


 * Theory:** DO NOT run blippy theory arguments. When you speed through these non-warranted arguments I find them un-flow-able. If you plan on extending it at some point I better have it explained to me first. ALSO -- Underviews are the items you should have said earlier if they were actually important... So blippy theory underviews = my least favorite type of theory argument. Theory is not meant to be used as time skew- so don't. That is not educational. Abusive team will lose points. If you are going to run theory it must have an actual explanation that is extended throughout the round.


 * Topicality:** I think there must be a clearly identified plan or advocacy statement for each affirmative. I also think that when running T or similar arguments the Negative should provide an example of a topical version of the aff. I find this to be very persuasive against education standards and advocacy statements.


 * Solvency/Case:** I like to hear topic specific case args more than anything. Especially solvency turns. I was taught that debate is all about “Whether or not the plan is a good idea.”


 * Random**: Despite how much I try to not to do so -- my opinion of your argument is often demonstrated in my facial expressions and body language. If I'm lost - you'll see it on my face. If I think you're right on track you'll also be able to see it. Also I flow on paper. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it but if you are going too fast and not clearly breaking apart cards/tags/ect. I could get lost or not write something you are hoping I will flow.