Siebert,+Scott

Debated at Illinois State for 4 years. Coached at ISU for 2 years after that. I'm now an assistant coach at Homewood Flossmoor and a PhD student at Loyola Chicago.

-counterplan/DA: I like them. I lean neg on most theoretical issues, with the exceptions being consult and states, which I’m undecided on. I think I would be more open to theory if teams would slow down a little when going through their blocks..

-Kritik: I enjoy the kritik. My debate and academic interests are more in line with this type of argument. I have a working knowledge of a decent number of critical authors, but you should still provide a full explanation of your argument. A clear explanation of how the alt solves the case would help as well.

-Topicality: I am open to voting for T, but I’m frustrated by debaters who rush through the position and don’t allow judges the time to flow or even hear the arguments. Because of this, you should slow down a little when presenting the position in the 1NC so I can actually flow what you say A few other things to keep in mind:

-You should relate to the resolution in some way, though I don’t think you have to have a topical plan. You should also offer a method to evaluate the round by. Do those two things and you should be fine. I’ll vote on framework, but I generally have a broad view on what’s acceptable in debate.

- I don't have the best flow. If you are super fast and super technical, I am probably not the best judge for you. If I do end up judging you, it would be good if you slowed down a little bit.

-I won't yell clear if I can't understand you. Being comprehensible shouldn't be hard. Also slow down when you are reading blocks. I need pen time to get down all your points.

-I don't want to call for/read a ton of cards after the round. If you specifically flag a card in 2Nr/2AR I will read it, but otherwise I will try to focus on the arguments made in round

-be polite. This activity is stressful enough without debaters screaming and insulting each other. I don’t like overly aggressive or rude debaters. Jokes are good, but there is a big difference between funny and mean.

-Typically these points lead me to judging smaller, more critical debates. I'm totally fine with that, but if you prefer a big, policy-centered debate. don't change your strategy to try and make me happy. Be clear and you shouldn't have any problems. If you have any questions feel free to ask.