Koshy,+Beena

Beena Koshy
Director of Forensics, Sacred Heart High School: MA Former Debate/Speech Coach, Apple Valley High School: MN

Experience:I debated for four years in high school. I also participated for four years in high school speech and congress. I coached while I was in college for four years. I now coach/direct my own program in Mass. I also teach business persuasion to a group of people who were never taught how to communicate. [That's for your benefit, since I think this activity is to teach you how to use skills in the "real world"]

Some people believe that I am more prone to judge on certain things than others. I have a few rules that make it easier for me to let you decide who wins my ballot. Otherwise you leave it up to me and that's no fun for anyone involved.


 * Everyone only cares about one thing when asking for a paradigm: NO, I CAN NOT HANDLE SPEED. If you care about anything else it is outlined below. **

1. Don't be rude. I can't stand rudeness in debate regardless of whether you think you are "just being funny." That doesn't mean that humor isn't allowed. . . but degrading your opponent or me only ruins your ability to get high speaker points and a win. I don't waiver on this whatsoever so if you think your behavior is even questionable please don't do it because you will only anger me. An angry Indian doesn't make for a good judge.

2. If you can't speak clearly don't speak fast. Some people believe they can speak quickly and that's a great skill for you. However, if you speak quickly at the expense of being clear I can't say I will be inclined to vote for you. If you have even a minor question about whether you CAN speak clearly just slow down - it's easier for all of us.

3. Link to a standard. I am huge fan of criteria. However, some people don't use it as the mechanism that can either filter out arguments or link arguments to the topic. I think it can be used for both. So use a criteria to evaluate the claims your opponent is making.

4. Theory arguments: they aren't my friend. I like arguments that are on topic. If you would like to make arguments about how your opponent is "violating T" then PLEASE make sure that they really ARE. I am willing to go so far as to say that I WILL INTERVENE AGAINST YOU if you use this as a tactic to "confuse" your opponent or to just put an "interesting" or "new" argument on the flow. It doesn't make sense to me. If they are making an honest effort to be on topic I think you should engage the discussion rather than avoid it.

5. Speaker points are based on speaking. I do not give speaker points based on you "winning" or "defeating" your opponent. They are based on persuasion, eye contact and delivery. The better you are the higher they go! Please remember there are only two people communicating in the round: you and your opponent. Since I only play the role of the listener it is your job and your job ALONE to make sure I get it. If you think I don't then a very reasonable argument to make is, "If you don't get it don't vote for it."

6. Strategy not trickery: I am not a fan of people who use arguments to be "sneaky". . .. that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good strategy in the round. While this IS a game it is meant to show the different levels of argumentation not your ability to "win at all costs." For example, extending one line out of your framework to "preclude" an entire case does not make for good debate in my mind. Cases that "preclude" the opponent's arguments don't make any sense to me at all either. Please engage the debate. I have no problem saying things like, "I didn't understand that argument the way you explained it." And I won't vote for things that I don't understand. I also have a problem with things being extremely confusing in the beginning of rounds and then "suddenly becoming clear" in the last two speeches. While I may not vote against you for trying to confuse us all it will iritate me. Iritated indians just make the world an unhappy place.

7. HAVE FUN: Please remember that this IS a game. . . it is supposed to be FUN. If you aren't having fun or if you aren't doing it because it IS fun. . you really shouldn't be doing it.

8. FRAMEWORK: While I like a good framework debate as much as the next person I really don't like debates that are ONLY framework. Someone who "won" their framework didn't prove the resolution "true or false" and accordingly you didn't really win the round. You merely told us how we evaluate who won the round.

9. JARGON: Please do not use words like "extend" or "outweigh" if you don't plan on actually doing those things. For example, "I outweigh on magnitude or probability" may sound nice but they don't really mean anything to me. Please be specific in what you believe the impacts and results of the round are. I also, for the record, believe that specifc, real world examples help create a "picture" of what your world looks like.

10. CRYSTALLIZATION: I lilke it. Please do it. It begins with clarifying the standard and then selecting arguments which you think link to that standard. "Crystallizing down the flow" rarely ever has the same effect. Speeches, in my mind, get shorter for a reason - less information is supposed to be in each speech.


 * As a side note, I like an order of operations. By that I mean, if everyone does what they are supposed to why do I evaluate some arguments before others? What is the order in which I evaluate arguments? Just like you do in math: multiply first and then the rest :)

These are the keys to my ballot. Please use them if you can! If you have questions it is better to ask them rather than try and debate assuming you know the answer. Good LUCK!