Bundenthal,+Thomas

Predominantly tabula rasa policy maker. My preference is to vote for the team that proposes and defends the best policy option (prefer N to be more than just not A). I rarely would vote for the "better debating was done by..." in the sense of style and technical prowess. If a team is less "polished" but wins an argument that is sufficient to win the policy, I will vote for that. For me, then, "better debating" means better argumentation, better choices/decision making in rebuttals. Style and technical skill matters (nice signposting!), but win the flow. I like teams that attempt to find "true" positions.

Debated policy in HS, mostly CEDA in college. Coached HS and College. Currently teach College Pol Sci. Econ undergrad. Out of loop (this whole century!) of current debate trends, but am fairly familiar with 12-13 topic.

I am an educator and am becoming crusty. I value what I think is educational about speech/debate. This would include persuasion, listening, argumentation, organization, answering and asking questions and research among others. So I don't like tag team unless it is necessary - mostly for clarification or to prevent/correct a mistake. I am finding a trend where female 1ACs particularly are not even allowed to answer questions by their male 2A. That is not acceptable. I want to see you prove that you understood the material that you just read. I want your PhD orals to be a breeze compared to a competitive policy round. I am ranking and rating __//a//__//l__l 4__// participants. How you do in C-X is second only to your rebuttal performance in that determination. Don't make your partner look stupid

I don't mind "flashing" but it counts on someone's prep time. Don't waste my time (call me Mr Hand) giving someone else an excuse not to listen to your speech. I worry that it leads to poor or non- flowing, which in turn diminishes clash, organization, listening skills, etc. Show me that you can apply your arguments directly to your opponent's. If we are just submitting briefs, I wouldn't need to be there.

I don't dismiss any theory argument automatically - I've always thought rules can be debated in round other than basics like time and speech order. But it is doubtful I will vote for a K that asks me to vote against a side essentially for being that side. If someone wins a flip and picks that side, ok, give it a shot. Fairness matters, but life isn't always fair.

Speed is not a huge problem as long as everything is CLEAR. If I don't hear it, it didn't happen. If I don't understand it, it doesn't count. Read my reactions. If you are looking for non-verbal feedback during round, I will give it. If you are wheezing or making odd noises while talking, you are going too fast. Don't go super fast then slam on the brakes, then go superfast. That is annoying. If you go as fast as you can and then have 2 minutes left in rebuttal, I will hurl hard objects in your general direction. The first round I ever saw at first day of camp featured "Fast Freddie" Fohrell, a champion NDT debater at Alabama. None of you will ever even imagine going as fast as him. But one can be just as effective going slow if you are clever like an Erwin Chemerinsky.

I make every attempt not to insert myself into the round. Nothing bothered me more as a competitor than when I thought a judge had. Now I know they probably did because we had done such a poor job. I won't make up arguments that weren't there, but I will not pretend that I don't know what I know. A stupid, false, illogical argument doesn't win just because the other team drops it. If it is valid, I will weigh it. But tell me what to weigh and how. Be reasonable regarding probabilities, risk and harm.

Be courteous to the other team. OK, hate them for an hour or so, but they might end up being your best friends if you get to know them after the round. Treat them how you want to be treated.

.