Bergus,+Katie


 * Abridged**: I like progressive LD debate, you can't go too fast for me and I'll vote on any arg you want to read. I can follow your arguments, so don't feel the need to shy away from however you like to play your game. You obviously debate best and make your best args when you debate in the style that you like best/are best at, so do that.

**Years Coaching LD**: 2 (for Gig Harbor High School in Gig Harbor, Washington) **Years Competing in LD**: 3 (for Gig Harbor High School in Gig Harbor, Washington) Qualifications: (from high school) triples at Berkeley, quarters at Auburn, semis at UPS, 1st place and speaker at PLU, 1st place and speaker at Washington State tournament, qualified for NFLs 3/3 years competing; (from college) octos at Regis, semis at Pacific, semis at UPS, 14th at NPTE as a freshman (college equivalent to the TOC) **Other Events**: NPDA parli - 2 years, CEDA policy - 1 year; various events in high school


 * Value/Criterion**: In most rounds, I think that a link into the criterion and value is critical for your arguments gaining weight in the round. If you are extending a game-winner that doesn't function within the winning framework, without a clear explanation about how that argument is weighed in a net benefits calculus against the arguments flowing through the framework, I will probably not evaluate the argument at all. Although explicit links to the standards are nice, I don't think that they're necessary as long as you are clear about how the argument functions within the framework, ie, I don't need to hear "and this links to my value and my criterion and so I win!" eight times during the 2ar. Similarly, winning framework doesn't usually mean you win the round, unless you have an exclusionary framework. Also, winning an argument that flows through the winning framework does not guarantee that you win the round, it merely means that you have access to the impacts of that argument.


 * Impacts**: I think that impacts should be terminalized and compared. Frequently in high school LD, impacts aren't interacted and internal link stories are weak or non-existent. It is important to me that you aren't saying "if states have nuclear weapons, extinction will happen," because this is not something I interpret as an argument. For me, impact calculation requires a clear impact story and strong internal links.


 * Topicality**: I am very, very unlikely to vote on an RVI. I think that if the neg feels strongly enough to extend T in the NR, they should be all-in on T, because I am also very, very unlikely to vote on a 15 second extension of a 1-shot kill. I am unlikely to vote on T without proven abuse. I feel similarly about a priori exclusionary arguments: if you are going to win the round on this argument, it should be very clear why and how this happens.


 * Kritiks**: I have actually really come to like the K debate. Do realize that the K is just another argument, however. A clear explanation of how your kritik functions in the round is preferable to you trying to mystify me or your opponent with your "super sweet" K.


 * Speaker Points**: My average is a 27. I will probably award a 30 once per tournament (or less) and probably won't give you a 25 or less unless you're acting incredibly offensively (you will be able to tell by your opponent's tears and/or the look of shock/disgust on my face) or you cheat. High speaker points are awarded for good arguments and excellent style.


 * Decorum**: I don't care what you're wearing when you debate, as long as you're wearing something. I like debating in sweaters and jeans. If you prefer a t-shirt or a suit, so be it; this is your game.


 * Delivery**: Speed never bothers me when I debate, so I don't foresee it bothering me when I listen to you debate. Speed, however, should not be confused with blippiness. If your argument is really slayer, its strength and credibility will be undermined by a blippy explanation the first time it's read and/or a blippy extension. Additionally, I think that it's preferable to clash and engage your opponents than use speed as a weapon against them.


 * Disclosure**: I think this holds me accountable and gives you the immediate feedback necessary to check back against a mess of problems you might have with your args or style, so I will gladly give a disclosure and am more than willing to answer questions you might have about the round. If you don't want a disclosure, there's no need for you to hang around while I make my decision.


 * My Style**: In high school, I read more traditional cases, but was a techy debater (I know, I was confused, too). In college, I went for politics 90% of neg rounds last year and go for the K about 90% in policy rounds this year and about 50% in parli. I am comfortable with whatever kind of debate you prefer.