Simmons,+Lyndsey

I debated for Cy-Fair High School in Houston, TX (2003). I was a four year state qualifier and in Domestic Extemp (finalist), a three year qualifier in LD, and a one year qualifier in Duet Acting (semi-finalist). I am currently in my second year as assistant LD coach for Grapevine High School, and I am a certified Speech and Theatre teacher.

In general, the best debates I have adjudicated hold several factors in common: clarity, impacts, and engagement. It is ideal that I make my decision solely on what the debaters have to say. I try never to intervene. Aside from markedly abusive or utterly absurd argumentation, I will listen to any kind of argument entered into the round. That being said, I do have some strong preferences.

VALUE/CRITERION: I retain the ideal of LD as VALUE debate. I prefer that each debater maintain a value and criterion. I do understand the function of a burden structure, but I generally use the standard as my main tool for evaluating each debater's respective offense. I like to see time spent on a strong value-criterion clash, and the appropriate resolutional impacts.

SPEED/SPEAKER POINTS: I can flow a fairly rapid rate of speaking, but I do consider LD a communication event. As a general rule, I prefer quality over quantity in terms of argumentation. I expect clarity, emphasis, and vocal illustration. I also like a clean, clear flow with ample and effective sign posting. I will not yell "clear," as I view this action as an intervention. If your speed become abusive or causes you to communicate your ideas poorly, your speaker points will reflect it. I also expect diplomacy and respect for your opponent. If this standard is not maintained, speaker points will be adjusted significantly downward.

ARGUMENTION: Above all, I enjoy a debate in which two opponents ENGAGE each others ideas. For me, rounds with numerous non-clashing arguments are difficult and unpleasant to adjudicate. BE RESPONSIVE! In the end, I look for a clearly emerging story from EITHER side of the round. I take each debater's voting issues (or decision calculus) under serious consideration when I am signing my ballot.

STRATEGY: I don't care for a great deal of theory in LD. I understand its function as a mechanism for checking abuse, but I don't view it as a strong source of offense. I prefer to vote on the legitimate clash created in the round. Secondly, evidence or "cards" do not stand alone. They add credibility to you ethical, metaphysical, moral (etc. etc.), argument, but they are not independent of it. I tend to flow the ANALYSIS inside the card, so please avoid referring to arguments by authors' names. The use of evidence should be impacted directly back to the value analysis and their weight in terms of evaluating the resolution.

Debate educational rounds in front of me! I try to provide very complete ballots with lots of constructive criticism! Please ask me any other questions that you may have!