Conoly,+Nate

I am the head debate coach for Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, Alabama. In terms of LD, we have a very traditional circuit in the state of Alabama, so I am most accustomed to judging more traditional rounds.

PF: Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I can handle somewhere around 6 or 7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Make good arguments and give their impacts. You should do the weighing in the round and make it so I should not have to do much work. Make it clear to me why you are winning. Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I also do not think 2nd speaking team is obligated to cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal. They can if they want, but if they want to spend the entire 4min on opposing case and let partner cover their own in summary that is fine.

I have a few pet peeves: 1) Pointless framework debates. Please don't spend forever debating whether we should use a cost/ben or util framework.... Also, I typically don't go for abusive frameworks. I also don't usually go for vote on face arguments presented at the top of rebuttals. What is the point of having a debate and this activity if I should just inherently vote a side on face? If it's a problem with their case, that's fine, but don't critique the resolution in PF. 2) Bad or misleading evidence. For instance, if a card reads "Max has scrambled to put up a fight against Joe 20 times" that does not mean "Max has defeated Joe 20 times." Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me. 3) Clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butts and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

LD: Please don't spread. Breathing is a good thing. Things I am fine with: counterplans, disads, theory only when your opponent is abusive, FW debates. Things I am less likely to go for: skep, K's, frivolous theory, etc. I prefer the round to be about the actual resolution. Write my ballot for me, if you tell me how to view the round and how to prioritize arguments the earlier the better. Again, I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision. Also, you can read the PF blip above (a lot of it still applies to LD).

Both: Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.