Acker,+Amanda

I am a coach at Briar Woods High School in Ashburn, Virginia. I fell into coaching policy debate three years ago and loved it. Since that time I have been learning everything I can about debate. I have attended camps and been active in judging in Washington-Arlington Catholic Forensics League. Currently, I’m coaching a team of 30 policy debaters.

First, it is important for debaters to know that I did not debate competitively in high school or college. I believe this impacts some of my preferences. Secondly, I am a social studies teacher by day and an avid “news junkie” in my spare time. I have dabbled in philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. I spent a lot of time in college researching and writing public policy. My specialties are in international politics and political/social topics relating to major world religions. Also, keep in mind that I teach AP United States History. I know how the American political system works and how it got to be that way. Basically, I have pretty solid background knowledge of most topics brought up in a debate round. I find that reading Nietzsche (or Hegel or Heidegger) is kind of like riding a bike - even if it's been awhile, you never really forget.

I like policy debate because it focuses on creating solutions through concrete action. Teams that veer away from clear objectives and policy tend to not get my ballot. However, that doesn't mean a performance or non-traditional case won't get my ballot - but emphasize clear outcomes, not just a vague change of perspective. Overall, I want debaters show me that they are capable of well-informed, deep and substantive analysis while maintaining an attitude of mature confidence.

Enough generalities, here are some specifics:

- Speaker Points: To obtain high speaker points you need to not only speak clearly and persuasively, you must know the topic inside and out. Do not run anything that you don’t understand. A lot rides on Cross-X for me (see below). Respect and professionalism carry a lot of weight with me as well. To obtain exceptionally high speaker points I must see evidence of deep analytical thinking. This is often evidenced by drawing in outside examples or references to current events, historical parallels, etc. Read the news - it will help you out! Show me that your background knowledge extends well beyond the isolated cards that you read. If you can do this it is possible for you to win a debate, or at least gain high speaker points, with very little evidence. Lastly, be sure of your pronunciation. I may visibly cringe if you pronounce “hegemony” incorrectly.

- Cross-X: I like to see teams that use CX to their advantage. Show off your extensive knowledge of current events and use CX to set up for the next speech. I don’t have a problem with using CX to clarify what the last speaker said. This is especially imperative for novice and JV teams who may not be as well-versed. However, I do have a problem with teams that don't use all of their CX time.

- K: I love Kritiks but hate teams who do not know how to run them. If you are going to run a K make sure that you are not causing some poor dead philosopher to roll over in his or her grave. A K should change the entire framework of the debate. Also, I tend to be more inclined to vote neg if their K is linked with a CP. While I love philosophy I think it needs to be grounded in some sort of alternative action. I don’t like nebulous K debates. (p.s. //Atlas Shrugged// and //The Fountainhead// are two of my favorite books)

- T: I am ok with T and I understand that it is a good strategy for negative teams to use in the beginning of a round. Please remember that to win on T you really have to go for it in the 2NR. This is very risky. There are a only a couple cases that could have legitimate T-issues. Basically, unless you’re sure, don’t go for T.

- DA’s and CPs- Love them! If I weren’t a teacher I’d be a policy analyst. I’m down with everything from the most generic to the most farfetched DAs or CPs. Show me that you understand how it links to the plan, turns the case, and/or provides a greater net benefit. You need to really focus on impact calc and net benefits in your rebuttals. Slow down and explain. By the time you get to your rebuttals I should know that you are able to read. Show me that you can think!

- On the neg: I tend to favor a well-integrated neg stratragy as opposed to one that presents alternate potentialities. While I understand the neg theory behind this, I believe that constructing a well-organized, non-contradictory neg stat demonstrates a higher level of critical thinking than a random jumble of files. That said, the neg can win on this if the aff fails to point out the contradictions in their arguments, or if the aff just does an exceedingly poor job of defending their plan.

- Speed – I’m okay with speed and can flow taglines in most of these debates. However, I like the rebuttals to be done at a slower pace with a good balance of evidence and analytics. Debate is more than just reading cards really really fast.

- Prep Time: If you don't use all of your prep time I will frown. It may influence the outcome. - Theory: Theory is the toughest for me to judge. If you run theory, slow down and spend a lot of time explaining your arguments. On theory you really have to go all in if you hope to win it. I don't often vote in favor of a team that does nothing but cry abuse, but it's more likely to happen if they go for theory in the 2nd rebuttal and offer very clear and convincing warrants.

- One last note: I really believe that you have to find your niche and run with it. If you are a philosopher stick with Ks. If you are a little wacky and creative, run a weird CP. I am totally ok with creativity as long as you debate it well. Who you are in a debate is just as important as what you say.

Also, please roadmap and signpost. Thank you.