Hannan,+Jeff

Jeff Hannan Director of Speech and Debate at ETHS Last Updated: 9/10/16

I am doing a hard restart this year on my [|paradigm].

Here's a short version: my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags slowly, [|explain things clearly] as early and often as possible, and order and explain my decision for me. My decisions will be worse when debaters assume I know things about the world, assume I will do work to understand or impact their arguments, or do not signpost/locate clearly on the flow.

I have no strong argumentative or stylistic preferences other than this: do not be a bad human being. If you are mean to your opponents or partner, either interpersonally or structurally, I will be seeking ways to vote against you.

I may ask to be on the email chain, but I will not read your arguments for you; I believe strongly that this is a communicative activity, and if I don't understand the words you read or say during the round, I will be [|unlikely] to go and read them myself to understand them better.

PF specific stuff: If it's not in the final focus, I will not evaluate it unless I have to. if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary, which means it probably needs to have been in the case or rebuttal. I flow, and will evaluate offense that is linked to a standard or framework for the round; you will like my decision most if you tell me how to make it.

I struggle to evaluate arguments that are just "Johnson says [claim]". I need warrants and explanations. If the evidence does not, or a team cannot, explain why an argument is true or what the argument would look like, then I am very unlikely to vote for it.