Reisman.+Carla

I debated both policy and LD debate all four years in high school in the Kansas City, MO area. I have been coaching a wide variety of speech and debate events since 2005 in Kansas City, MO and 2009 in North Texas.

__ CX: __ I am a fairly moderate judge and will use a well-argued framework to decide most rounds. If none is presented, I usually default Policy Maker.

I'm a bit old school when it comes to basic manners and debate etiquette. Professional presentation and interactions are expected. However, it's not a fashion show; we are there to debate. So, I won't be judging your appearance more than to see that you tried to look fairly put-together. Rudeness and pettiness will not be tolerated. Again, professional...

Argumentation: I will vote on a lot of things, assuming you give me solid reasoning. Arguments should have clear warrants and justifiable impacts. Extinction and nuke war can be justifiable, but you need to warrant, not just read scenario cards. Non-generic arguments are always better than defaulting to the same old stuff. Also, if you are going to claim that something is abusive, prove it. Don't just whine about abuse if you cannot adequately exhibit why.

Speed: Moderate speed is best for most rounds. I can handle more, assuming it is clear and actually enjoy a round with crystal clear speed/spreading. However, if you don't do speed extremely well, I would rather you focus on clarity and strong argumentation rather than speed and strategy. I will yell "clear" once if I cannot understand you. If you continue to be unclear, I will put my pen down or shut my laptop to indicate that I have stopped flowing.

If you are going to run a K, be sure you do it well. There is nothing more frustrating for me than watching a contradictory or poorly run kritik. Although, watching a high-quality kritical round is awesome! Again, warrants and impacts with clear links in imperative here.

I am not a big fan of open CX. I want to see that both partners are knowledgable on the topic and able to handle themselves accordingly during CX.

__LD:__ Most of my experience comes from the "old-school" of value debaters. I want a clear framework with legitimate links and warrants. I usually prefer that LD debate include discussion of value/criterion and be treated as an ethical or moral debate, as the resolutions typically imply…typically. With that said, if resolutions are more policy-like, then different strategy can be warranted. Imperatives or obligatory arguments are enjoyable for me in LD. Filling the NEG with counter plans and generic disads are less interesting, especially if links are weak. Don't read things you don't understand. Be sure you have a clear understanding of the literature backing up your cards and know the majority of a particular theory or philosophy. Just reading cards without a clear understanding of how to use them is frustrating to watch and all too common in LD. Question your opponent's knowledge of the evidence and its application. Very simply, know your given topic and know your literature! You don't have to be progressive to be competitive, but I am not totally opposed to progressive LD either.

See above for information regarding speed and basic argumentation.

If there are questions, feel free to ask me at any point in the round.