Mohn,+Susan

Mohn, Susan So, background, FWIW Competed for Berkeley High in the mid-70's (Policy, Extemp, Impromptu, DI, HI) Competed for Whitman in the late 70's (IE's: Extemp, DI, HI, Reader's Theatre) Coached Lakeridge HS in Lake Oswego, jr. high in 1989 (took team to nationals in policy) Coached University of Indiana, Bloomington from 1990-1993 (team rose from 48th to 6th in first 2 years, from 6th to 5th in year 3) - NDT teams to nats all 3 years. Coached with Glacier Peak in Snohomish, WA - assisted 2 years, head coached one year 2010-11; took 1 student to nationals 2011. Coaching Interlake HS in Bellevue WA. Launched team in 2011. Took 5 students to State year 1; Took 10+ 2nd year. 2011-2015.

I judge 4 types of debate: Policy, LD, PF and Congress.

What I tend to judge on:

Policy: Largely a tab judge, in general, if you run an argument, and the other side doesn't take it up, you'll win it - but things like vaporizing the moon have a lower bar to being blown over then arguments closer to "real world". I'm also, as you can see from above, an Old School judge, so while I'm fine with most types of arguments including K, you need to be able to explain it in your own words and connect anything you run to the round we're actually in.

I like Case arguments more than K and as much as K is cool, you still need to deal with the old stock issues at some level (sig, harm, inherency). I will vote on T, provided it's argued well and not just tossed out and provided it's not so generic that all AFF cases fail equally. While I enjoy a good K, I tend to think most Kritics/Critical Arguments are unnecessarily convoluted and poorly understood. Most don't pass the sniff test. If it's run against you and you think it's silly, I likely will too and will be thrilled to hear you say so out loud. If you like to run them and they're both valid and have specific links to the round, then be able to explain them in your own words as well and I'll be very pleased to hear them under those conditions. I tend to vote the flow, so clash is important. At SOME point, neg will need to attack the aff case, not just work "off". Flat out lies (Climate Change is all fake, for instance) aren't going to fly in a round even with (biased) ev.

LD: Please remember this is not "one-man policy" - it's a different animal and I want you to treat it as such. Value and Criterion actually matter and spread debate doesn't, in my view, serve LD as well as it does Policy. I expect a VC that measures your Value and Contentions that support the Value as well.

PF: Please remember this is Public Forum. The point of this event is "common man" debate. I shouldn't have to pull out my Policy lingo to keep up, arguments like "hedge" aren't likely to fly in a PF round (unless VERY well explained with NO lingo) and this is NOT a speed game.

Congress: This is a form of debate - and I expect evidence, analytical arguments and questions that lead somewhere.

In general: Speed is earned. If you're good enough, speed is fine in Policy. If not, slow down till your diction improves. Tags will help, but speeding through your ev so I can't process it means I have to either accept your assertions about it or ignore it. Or, worse for you, believe what the *other* side asserts. I may ask for cards, to confirm my understanding of the ev - not to reconstruct your arguments. If I didn't catch it on the flow, you're out of luck.