Mahoney,+Danielle

Currently the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Half Hollow Hills HS East, Dix Hills NY Coaching since 2012 English Teacher since 2005 Judging Experience at Local, State, and National Levels

I am traditional LD judge. Avoid debate jargon. Critiques and Shells are annoying and I cannot stand them. I want Values, Value Criterions, definitions, and Contentions that demonstrate impacts within your value structure. These should be based in philosophy. There should be clear clash throughout the round, but it should be polite and respectful.

**Speed**: If I cannot flow your arguments, I cannot judge you. If I've dropped my pen, that's your warning sign that you've gone too quickly for me to follow you. This is an event in communication. If you cannot communicate your arguments clearly, effectively, and articulately, then you're in the wrong activity.


 * Theory: ** I am adaptable to //some// theory debates. However, your theories shouldn't dismiss the resolution or create nonsensical rules that hinder the debate round.

As per Mike Evans, who explains my own philosophy on judging LD expertly:

"I am a humanities teacher whose involvement in LD proceeds from my interest in philosophical debate. I like to see attention to values, value criteria, definitions, and references to recognized philosophers. If you base your case on justice, I expect to hear what kind of justice you have in mind and what ethical system it is based on. If you want to talk about rights, you would do well to explain where those rights come from. I care about contentions only insofar as they support a coherent argument, so I don't particularly care if some one drops sub-point c of contention 3. **I** **loathe** **spreading**. I find critique tedious. I am willing to consider impacts, but in an ideal affirmative-universe/negative-universe way rather than a policy way. I appreciate analysis, logic, clear language, and good manners. In sum, I am a traditional judge."