Woodhouse,+Cyndy

I am a former LD debater from Bettendorf, IA. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at Bettendorf HS, Vestavia Hills HS and am presently the director at Iowa City West HS. I have been judging since I graduated high school (1998)
 * __BACKGROUND__**

I would like to see debaters develop solidly organized and reasoned cases around one central theme. I would prefer to see contentions focusing on single arguments and better developing the theories behind the arguments instead of trying to fill the contention with a series of blips.
 * __ARGUMENT STRUCTURE/STRATEGY__**

I would also like to see debaters use a more philosophical approach to the debate instead of merely pragmatic applications of arguments. Given the context of the resolution to the abstract, I would like to see debaters give some thought to the philosophical underpinnings of the concepts of the resolution as opposed to every day application. I like to see philosophy-based cases and well-thought out arguments.

I believe the value and criterion ought to be the central focus of the arguments within the debate. I would prefer that in addition to impacting back to initial claims, debaters spend time relating arguments back to the criterion as a way to achieve the value. Values and criteria ought not be after-thoughts in the debate, nor should they be things that the debater just tries to “win.” I prefer to see direct relationships drawn.

I appreciate evidence used to support arguments, however, I do not want debaters to extend “cards” because most pieces of evidence are not the crux of the argument being made. Instead, I would prefer to see debaters focus on the argumentation as a whole, including the evidence, but to discuss their own claims and warrants first. Evidence is not a good enough reason for me to accept or reject an argument.

I will listen to most arguments and try not to allow my personal perceptions enter into my decisions, however, I will reject a position which would require me to endorse a particularly repugnant argument (i.e. it’s ok to commit genocide in the name of organized religion if that’s what the people want). I don’t particularly like kritiks and probably subconsciously look for a reason to not vote for them.

I don't like theory unless there's a HUGE abuse in-round, and even then, the abuse argument should not be the primary response.

I don’t like external roadmapping. This means that at the beginning of each speech, I start keeping time when the debater starts talking, so if the first thing the debater says is “I’ll start with the neg and then go aff,” that’s all being timed. Instead, I would prefer contextual roadmaps. This means that the debaters will begin the speech by saying something like “Before looking at the affirmative case, let’s look at the value/criterion clash.”
 * __REBUTTALS__**

At the start of each speech, I find it much more persuasive and helpful to begin by saying o What the opponent’s position says o What the debater’s own position says o Where the conflict is between the two o What the debater believes s/he has to prove to resolve that conflict in his/her favor.

I would prefer to see debaters engage in strategically planned rebuttals and refutation instead of trying to go for everything on the flow. I don’t like to have to resolve a bunch of stuff for myself at the end of the round, so I would like to see debaters make an attempt to resolve substantive issues in summary of the round.

I am not a fan of crystallization down the flow in the NR. I would rather hear coverage of important issues and then focus on specific voting issues. In rebuttals, it would be most helpful to begin by resolving the value/criterion clash and then giving a little overview which explains how the clash between the two positions will be resolved in terms of the value and criterion of the side speaking.

I don’t just vote on drops on face, so extending arguments isn’t enough for me to vote on them/for you to win. I would like to hear specific impacts and weighing as to: o Why the drops are significant o How they apply to the overall position of the debater o How they will affect the rest of the round o How they weight against the drops/arguments of the opponent

I do not like speed. I don’t think it’s necessary. In general, I think that debate has become less persuasive and strategic and has sort of become about throwing a bunch of stuff at the judge to see what sticks. I give higher speaker points to individuals who attempt to adapt and focus on strategy and positional debate as opposed to a flowing contest. I do use the entire speaker point scale when allowed by the tab room, so please do not expect the 27-30/46-50 unless you are nearly or completely flawless. I will consider JV and novices on a different scale. I have not given a 30/50 in several years.
 * __SPEAKER POINTS__**

I don't typically flow anymore. When I do, it's not a rigorous flow and is mostly just notes about key arguments and clash.
 * __OTHER STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ME__**

I think the communicative aspect of this activity is important and appreciate good engagement of argumentation done clearly. I prefer not to flow most of the debate and will spend a majority of the time writing on the ballot or simply watching and listening. Make eye contact with me. Keep it simple and clear. Debate with some humanity and generosity for your opponent and yourself. Debate isn't just about what comes out of your mouth, but what goes into the ears of your audience and they're not always the same things.

Good luck and feel free to ask specific questions before the debate!