Gill,+Grace

I was a LD debater for Stevens High School (Rapid City South Dakota) for 2 years. This is my first year coaching VHS and I attend the University of South Dakota, majoring in Criminal Justice, Psychology and Sociology.


 * Philosophy**

I evaluate rounds based upon the Value/Criterion framework; I want to hear arguments to establish which debater has the best value/criterion for weighing the round and/or measuring/achieving the value. After these two things are established, I look to see how arguments on the contententional work under the winning framework and which side the better arguments flow toward.

If provided, I look towards the Resolutional Analysis to determine burdens within the round and how the resolution should be interpreted.

Some things to know about me :

-I believe the value/criterion are crucial to LD debate. I will not vote against a debater for lacking a value but they need to provide a clear framework and make the proper arguments against their opponent. If they lack a criterion, they will need to make it clear to me the standard which they use to measure/weigh/achieve the value. However, if a debater completely ignores the value/criterion debate all together, they will not win. That being said, if a debater is proposing a value, I want to hear why the value is 'desirable' and how it relates to the resolution within the round. Debater who have a value cannot simply say 'the resolution says 'just' therefore we value justice because that is what the resolution demands'. I think morality and justice are two different normative categories so I would like a substantial explanation on why they are the same if that is your case strategy.

-On delivery, I do not believe LD to be equivalent to policy. When speaking, debaters should stick to middle ground; not a sloth but not a policy pace either. I will not vote against someone for speeding, however, if debaters speak too fast for me to flow, I will not record their arguments and consequentially, their arguments will not be considered by me within the round.

-When debaters pull something across the flow or cross-apply something, they must provide sufficient analysis as to why it matters. Make it more than just a line on my flow of the round. Minimal, yet sufficient, analysis for cross-application or extending will always carry more weight than cross-applications and extensions with an absence of explanation. Crystallization and voting issues should be given at the end of the debate.

-I believe debaters should explain how their arguments relate with one another. For example, debaters should be able to tell me how certain cards, analytical, or statistics affect the round, namely the value and criterion. Basically, make the argumentative connections for me. There are too many times where I can see an easy connection that could win the round for the debater, but the debater fails to flesh that argument out causing me to vote against the debater. I will not make connections for debaters on the flow if they do not do it themselves. -I am not a fan of theory debate but I will listen when the abuse is severe.

-Finally, do not try to argue with me after a round; it will not change my decision and I will not listen to it.