Melin,+Eric

U of H update in progress - Check back 1/10/2018

I coach Policy (Grapevine HS), Public Forum (Colleyville Heritage HS) and LD (assist some for Southlake Carroll). Previously at Hockaday, Southlake Carroll, Marcus and JBS Law Magnet.

I have judged a lot of debates over the last 15 years, and as I've aged, I find myself having less patience for generic arguments. I love positional debating. Be that a plan/cp, critical aff or other methods. I want to see engagement and clash whether at a substantive and/or framework level. Nothing is worse than seeing generic debates with non-specific links or theory arguments that can be run in any round. FInd a position you want to debate from and dig in. Be willing to do case specific prep and debate opposing teams deeply. If your only interest is to run the same generic K without topic/plan/advocacy specific links, I'm probably not the judge for you. I'm inclined to believe there are better and worse courses of action and that participating in the endeavor to distinguish between the two has more educational value than proving the project meaningless or impossible. If you have questions before the round, I will answer them. Specificity will serve you well there, however.

More specifically: Topicality is about competing interpretations unless another paradigm is justified. Good T interpretations are specific. Standards should be developed and not impoverished. Why does the ground you lose matter? What cases does an interpretation allow for or exclude from the topic?

I try to follow all of your arguments. I will yell "clear" or "slower", but if you just fall right back into the same unintelligible speech pattern two sentences later (after saying clear a couple of times) then I guess I won't get some of your arguments on my flow. If you are going to read a string of analytics quietly and/ or at top-speed then expect me to miss a lot of your arguments. If it is not on my flow then I will not vote for it. I think more judges should stick to that standard and not clear things up by calling for arguments/cards after the round. You choose how many arguments to include in your speeches.This goes for every argument in the round including theory, blocks, underviews and anywhere else you expect me to flow every sentence because its not gonna happen.

Please be respectful of everyone in the round. Rudeness and snarkiness are unwelcome.

Email chains are good.

Flashing is less good but fine.