Beretay,+Abdul

I debated for Bergenfield back in the late 90s. I now coach Byram Hills and University (NJ).

I consider myself to be a pretty open minded judge, as I won't strike you down for running any particular position. A few things to consider though.

1) I'm somewhat old school. This doesn't mean that you need to speak slowly and link into a value criterion to win the round, although that's probably the easiest style for me to evaluate. I'm fine with speed (to a reasonable extent- straight spewing not so much) and critical arguments, so long as they're explained. 2) I'll listen to theory, but make it clear why you're actually being abused. It's one thing to say there's ground skew. It's another to actually explain why the ground skew prevents you from debating.

3) Although I'll obviously vote off of dropped arguments, I prefer to not have to. Sure, if your opponent dropped some key points, bring them up. I just don't like it when somebody focuses entirely on dropped argument, using that as an excuse to avoid clash in the round. If the round only comes down to extending dropped points, sure you'll win, but it's pretty worthless on an educational level.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have before a round.