Cooper,+Cary

> I competed for two years at Pacific Palisades High School, mostly in L-D. For the past 11 years I have worked as the administrative manager for the K-12, six-campus, bilingual //Le Lycée Français de Los Angeles// schools, which because it is accredited by the French Ministry of Education is required to teach public speaking, debate, etc. Not surprisingly, I enjoy hearing a good quote from Rousseau, and Camus is fine, too, except when espousing his, shall we say, unique views on fidelity (and let's just leave it at that).

My judging criteria emphasizes cohesion, sharp intelligence, and keen insight into the issue at hand. If the Resolution involves criminal justice, I expect both Affirmative and Negative speakers not to rely on just meta-analysis and truly give me some insights of your own - what do all these numbers? Put some meat to the statistics being cited, but this does not mean rely of anecdotal example but instead just give the issue a human face (without being maudlin, of course).

Running critical arguments is fine but not at the expense of attacking the Affirmative case and/or the Resolution itself.

As for speed, I have a keen ear and thus can spread but if you sacrifice a main case point just for speed, you could lose speaker points. (Pronunciation also is key, as is decorum and proper etiquette.)

While all this may sound very formal, above all I want debaters to have fun - //joie de vivre!//