Stellmach,+Jessie

Hey guys. I'm currently an assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Rosemount High School in Minnesota. Before that I was an LD assistant at Law Magnet in Dallas. Before that I debated LD at Rosemount.

I am fine with judging faster debates. I usually say on a scale of 1-10 I would say I'm fine with a 7-8, but that doesn't always help everyone. I am a huge stickler for clarity. Speed reading cards is fine, but I also prefer a debater who slows down to sign-post and makes sure that we're all on the same argument. I will not flow something if I don't understand it and I will flow arguments in a huge block if the debater fails to tell me where an argument goes.

I do find myself voting more on the contention level, but I also will evaluate any kind of argument. Sometimes a "contention level" argument is in a DA or a "counter-plan" but I evaluate them all the same as a standard NC. I prefer to hear debates about the topic rather than debates about things like what morality is, but I will vote on whatever the debate develops into. I like a story to come out of the line-by-line and depending on the debate that could mean that the criterion is important. As with a lot of judges, I am finding that the value is becoming less and less important so depending on the debaters the criterion can be very important, or not important at all. I like to let the debaters debate the round, but the clear advocacy or story at the end of the round is important especially if they are going to do something different.

I am not a fan of theory. I don't think it is evil because I understand that it is an important tool against abuse, but I really do not prefer to hear it. It is probably a little bit attributed to the fact that I don't often see it run very well, but I also find myself not really knowing how to evaluate theory after it's been answered so it's best as a debater to run a case with impacts regarding the topic in front of me.