Bailey,+Jessica

Jess Bailey

>
 * Debated for**: Apple Valley, MN (‘95-‘99)
 * Coached at**: Edina, MN (‘00-‘03, ‘05-‘06); Hopkins, MN (‘06-‘10), Needham, MA (’10-present)
 * Likes:**
 * Pragmatic, politically/socially significant arguments: particularly on very specific or non-philosophical resolutions, I have a strong preference for empirically supported, real-world arguments.
 * Weighing: I don’t necessarily care if you have a value/criterion, but there does need to be some way that I can evaluate arguments against each other. This holds true for off-cases as well – I’m fine with voting on something pre-standards, but there need to be clearly articulated reasons for me to prefer your arguments over your opponent’s.
 * Dislikes:**
 * Theory: sooooo boring/insignificant to me (it's basically the opposite of what I find interesting in arguments - see "likes" above). I have no problem voting off theory when a genuine fairness or education violation has occurred, but in general I won’t vote for a theoretical theory violation, i.e. the potential for unfairness, etc. I also won’t accept a theory position that //de facto// excludes your opponent from the round, i.e. arguments that say the affirmative is always wrong by nature of the resolution, etc. I also will not presume aff on time skew (but am open to presuming one side over the other //provided that// the debater gives me a warranted reason to do so).
 * Attitude: giving your opponent a lot of attitude or acting like a d-bag in rounds generally makes me subconsciously //want// to vote against you, making me more critical of your arguments and more likely to look for a way to give you the loss. Speaker points will be greatly effected.
 * Communication:** for me, debate is ultimately a communication activity designed to cultivate some of the most important real-world skills you can ever learn. Because of that, I place great importance on your ability to convey an argument in a clear, compelling manner.
 * Delivery: If you are going to read off of your computer, I would prefer you to sit down and face the screen rather than stand up and hunch over it. The same thing goes for reading blocks – if you can’t stand up straight and hold the papers while reading them, then just sit down. This is a matter of practicality, especially in old classrooms: it is much easier to hear you when you are not directing your delivery towards the table.
 * Speed vs. Enunciation: please be self-aware in this regard – not everyone can talk fast and still be clear. There is a huge tradeoff here: if you have to restart every other word/sentence because you’re running your words together or stuttering over them, you’re not saving yourself any time. Speed is not a problem for me, but clarity/enunciation are.
 * Speaker points: I base speaker points in part on your ability to communicate. Many judges don’t do this and instead use speaker points to rate the debater’s arguments. I take a holistic approach – your speaker points are determined both by the quality of your arguments and by your ability to communicate them.