Coyne,+Lynne

Lynne Coyne Ridge HS 2010 As a student, I competed in both policy debate and LD, as well as several speech events, and have coached students across the forensic spectrum. I try to be tabula rasa, but I also bring a rational mind to judging, so this is not permission to run repugnant positions advocating genocide or rape good (yes, I have heard both with ugly points as a result). I have a low tolerance level for obnoxious and rude behavior in rounds. Absent argumentation to the contrary, I view debate as a truth seeking activity with the round designed to test the resolution. Based upon recent experience, the following topics seem to be most relevant to discussion:
 * 1) Speed: I come from a policy background, so speed doesn’t scare me as long as you remain clear. I will give feedback, so pay attention. You must slow down, however, when presenting complex critical positions or theory substructure to assure that everyone has time to process the implications of the position.
 * 2) V/C Standards debate: I view the standards debate as the lens with which to view the rest of the debate, not an area of independent voters. If some spike functions as an apriori VI, it better be clear when presented or I will hesitate to pull the trigger when it becomes 3 minutes of a rebuttal.
 * 3) Evidence: Full cites must be available. Cards can be highlighted, but the full context must be present. I take ethical challenges regarding evidence seriously so be sure to cut carefully.
 * 4) Critical Arguments: To be honest, although I have voted for many critical positions, I find diving into postmodern literature painful. I am better with political/legal kritiks. To get my ballot you MUST prove how the opposition links to the kritik rather than just reading a generic block.
 * 5) Theory: I believe theory arguments are necessary to check in-round abuses. That said, I find theory debates to frequently devolve into competing taglines of debate jargon presented at blazing speed. Ultimately, I believe all standards can be collapsed into an argument that shows which competing interpretation is best for debate and dividing ground.