Wolov,+Mark

Affiliation: Baccalaureate School for Global Education, Astoria (Queens) NY I've been coaching H.S. policy debate since 2004. I'm open to all forms of argumentation (my debaters fall on both the policy and critical sides of the spectrum). Here are my likes and dislikes:

LIKES: 1. Clarity - I can adjust to speed as long as you're clear. I want to spend my time in the round analyzing your strategy and arguments, not trying to figure out what the hell you're saying. 2. Impact Analysis - By the end of the round (2NR & 2AR), tell me why you deserve to win. If you're Aff, why are the impacts of not passing the plan much worse than the impacts of passing it, and vice-versa if you're Neg? 3. Clear explanation of Theory & Framework - If you're going for either of these, don't just zip through cards you found as quickly as possible and expect me to seriously consider it. Provide some analysis - explain it clearly what the round should be judged on and why. If you can give me a clear framework to evaluate the round on, I will.

DISLIKES: 1. Not understanding your own Kritiks - Don't get me wrong, I love a good kritik argument. However, I've judged a lot of rounds over the past year or two where debaters just spread a lot of cards and have no clue what they mean (trust me, Zizek is NOT advocating nuclear war). I want to hear some good analysis as well, and here's some free advice - if you think your opponent doesn't understand their K ask them what it means in their own words during CX, then call them on it during your rebuttal! 2. Multiple Worlds - I know some people in the debate world think it's fine for the Neg to have args in multiple worlds, but I don't buy it - after all, can the Aff present multiple plans? Different Neg args shouldn't logically contradict each other (for example, don't run a Capitalism K and then a CP that advocates free market solutions). That being said, the Aff needs to point out that the Neg's arguments are contradictory and therefore abusive. 3. Pointless T battles - I want to make it clear that I'm not against a well-constructed topicality argument that explains clearly why the Aff is abusive. Unfortunately, the majority of T I hear in high school rounds I judge are pointless back and forth definitions and counter-definitions of "USFG" or "increase", and there's no way I'm going to vote on that.

Don't be mean!