Bond,+Linda

> Bond, Linda Bond. Background: I am a NYC Public High School English teacher and new to the debate community. I am quickly falling in love with debate and wish I had access to it when I was in high school, albeit a million years ago, I believe the activity did exist. I have no formal debate experience; unless, of course, convincing my 3 older brothers that our sole television should be reserved for “Laverne and Shirley” every Tuesday night, is considered debating.

Debate Philosophy First and foremost debate is about education. If you don't seek to educate your judge and your opponents, then why are you engaging in this activity? Being an educator, I love to learn and love to see kids teach each other something valuable. Most of all, I love when I learn something new, or challenged to rethink what I thought I already knew.

Judging Philosophy My judging philosophy is simple. Know what you’re debating about and what your argument is. I am pretty open-minded about You should know your plan-text, your advocacy, and your impacts. If you have to look at your 1AC or 1NC to answer a question in the cross-ex, then you need more practice, especially this late in the season. You should be educated and knowledgeable about whatever it is you are advocating. I'm not in the round to hear what your coach thinks about FoPo or the ills of society, I am there to hear what you think. If your answer to a question is “it’s in my 1AC” rather than just answering the question, there’s a problem. There’s also a problem if you waste valuable debate time on a minor technicality, like dictionary definitions, or the difference between reduce and eliminate, unless it is pertinent to your argument. I firmly believe that too many debaters just spew out evidence and arguments at 500 words-per-minute without bothering to learn what they’re actually talking about. I would rather listen to a debate that seeks to educate the listener, rather than dazzle him or her with the techniques the debater learned in camp or from over-zealous coaches. You should //understand// your evidence, not merely know it. The difference between understanding something and knowing something, is that understanding means you can discuss and think critically about something, as opposed to knowing that author X said XYZ in a prestigious publication sans knowing what author X meant. Don't whine to me about fairness because your opponent stumped you. You should be prepared to debate many topics concerning the resolution. You should also be familiar with opposing team's constructive arguments since they are available on the wiki...do your homework! Convince me why you should win, rather than why your opponents should lose.