Spiller,+Sam

Sam Spiller- Head Coach Pinnacle HS, Phoenix, AZ Years Coaching Debate- 10 Qualified to judge- LD (all levels), PFD, Policy (local only) Past affiliations- Coached Catalina Foothills HS, debated for Saguaro HS.

I view LD debate as an activity in flux at the moment. As such I must be open to a variety of styles and strategies. It is my responsibility as a competent judge to be well-versed in all aspects of the activity. While it may be okay for me to personally question some of the modern concepts and strategies, I am obligated to be a fair and impartial judge who avoids intervention if at all possible. If I am forced to intervene it will be against my will, and at the expense of the debaters. Your speaker points will be lowered, and my RFD will be scathing. Don't ask me to give you an oral critique unless you are prepared for a lecture. I will take my time and tell you exactly what happened in the round. I will not tell you where I am casting my ballot. But I will expose where the clash occured on my flow. I do not feel obligated to re-coach anyone, but I will tell you how it worked for me.

I can flow speed at a local-circuit policy level. I do lose track of some debaters at the national level, but I revise my flow throughout the round, and can usually piece it all together by the end. Do I prefer spread debate in LD? Not really. I don't mind speeding through cards, but I believe tags and analysis should be slower. I am not looking to be persuaded by speech quality. I look at the arguments, warrants and analysis. But in order for me to understand what is being said, it helps when it is a bit slower. It is always better to have less, and have it be clear. And there is nothing I hate more than a spead debater who stumbles through a constructive. I am not going to yell "clear." I am just going to look annoyed and flow what I can. If I can't put it together by the end, then. . well. . sucks to be you.

I like the idea that there are a myriad of different ways to validate the resolution, and just as many ways to invalidate it. Creativity is one of the most underrated parts of debate. I always pushed the limits when I was a debater, and still do now as a coach. If you can justify something, and it makes sense to me, I will be inclined to listen. It is your oppontent's duty to give me reasons why I shouldn't. Go ahead and use "policy" arguments. If you can validate the resolution using a plan, then do it. But you had better understand what that requires. A plan with no solvency is not a plan, it is a thought experiment. I will vote on Topicailty, if the abuse can be showed. Extra-T, and Effects-T, are fine too. I am fine with Counter-Plans, even conditional ones, provided they make sense and are competitive. I am also good with Dis-Advantages. They should still have the link-brink-impact shell, but I will accept more impacts in LD than I would in CX. If your impact is Moral Degradation, and you can show a decent brink, then I am cool. I am not so convinced yet than the standards of uniqueness have the same applicability in LD as they do in CX. The AFF is goining to have to show me why a generic argument is bad before I will vote for it. And I am okay with Kritiks too. I do not like thinly-veiled Kritiks being called something else. If you are going to run a K, then man-up and run the damn thing. If you really believe you can leverage your understanding of Nietzsche against an intuitive understanding of the resolution, then do it. I have a degree in Philosophy from one of the best programs in the nation. I can keep up with you.

LD needs to have its dignity protected. This is a formal activity, and as such certain rules of etiquite and decorum apply. I believe debaters should be honest and respectful. Please stand while you speak. Do not badger your opponent in cross-ex. Do not make your reactions visible during their speeches. Gasps, groans, and laughter are incredibly rude. Do not bring your novice teammates in to observe your round without telling them to behave themselves. If I have to quiet them during the round (even during prep), YOU will suffer for it. No one but the debaters will be allowed to flow the round. Scouting is fine, but I don't have to let it happen in my rounds. If I am on a panel I will still enforce my rules. I am not afraid to defend myself to another judge.

If you have me as your judge I want you to know that I will do everything in my power to ensure you have a fair round. I will listen, take notes and adjudicate to the best of my ability. You may not win, but you can trust that you had a fair chance.


 * And do not argue with me during the oral critique or I will kill you.**