Stein,+Maddy

I debated for 4 years for Randolph High School (NJ) on the local, national, and northeast circuits. I taught at NSD and VBI this past summer (2011). I am an assistant coach at Byram Hills High School (NY).

General: I like to see smart strategies in rounds- I’m pretty open to most positions as long as they’re clearly executed. Explain the function of all your arguments and impact back to a decision calculus. **Please signpost.**

Speed: I’m fine with speed as long as you’re clear. I’ll yell clear twice and then dock speaks after that.

Theory: I’d prefer to see theory run in cases of actual abuse. I’ll vote on theory arguments I don’t like, but your speaks may suffer. I don’t presume in favor of competing interps or reasonability. You need to extend all parts of the shell in your later speeches. I don’t buy fairness is not a voter, but I will listen to arguments about dropping the argument not the debater.

Extensions: They need to have a summarized warrant and impact from the original argument in all subsequent speeches.

Confusing Positions: I’ve never read any critical literature nor ran a K. I find most K’s to be pretty confusing. I prefer to see critical positions in a normal case structure and explained in a clear manner.

Speaks: I base speaks on the quality of your performance in round. Winning off of toolbox when you’re losing every other argument in the round means that I won’t give you great speaks.

Presumption: I don’t presume aff or neg. I vote on whatever risk of offense exists in the round.

Random things I don’t want to see: - arguments about how plans and emulating policymakers are educational - discourse arguments that have no relation to the topic - a round entirely about if permissibility flows aff or neg - impact-based justifications for the standard - debate over the value