Sloan,+Thomas

//Last edited February 6, 2018//

[|NSDA High School Rules 2017-2018]
 * PF Competitor for two years, 2011-2013
 * Coach for four years, 2014-2018
 * Judging at mostly local (Denver/CO) and a few national tournaments

I am open to a wide variety of styles and types of arguments; I don't like to dismiss anything just because it's unfamiliar to me. I can handle moderate speed, but if you see me stop typing or writing (while perhaps staring at you blankly), then you're too fast. I tend to find that a polished, 'public orator' type of presentation is more compelling to listen to than speed-reading or the somewhat relaxed policy debate approach, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule, and stylistic considerations are usually secondary to content.

I'm familiar with most debate jargon; I can't say I necessarily care if you use it or not. When it comes to argumentation, debate is about proving your claims (warranting and linking) and explaining why those claims, if true, mean a vote for your side (framework and impact analysis). The latter is, of course, more important in LD than in PF. As a rule, the more unusual or high-impact your argument, the more clarity and thoroughness I expect in your warranting. In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Pet Peeves (things I find myself noting on ballots disturbingly often)

 * Repeating something from your case late in the round while ignoring the arguments your opponent brought against it
 * Mischaracterizing something your opponent said really, //really// irritates me!
 * Spending an entire crossfire asking clarification questions (e.g. "Could you elaborate on C3?") indicates to me that you aren't prepared. Asking one or two clarification questions is fine if you genuinely need the clarification, but crossfire is about advancing the debate--don't waste it by letting your opponent re-read half their case.