Shen,+Jamie

Background: I competed all four years of high school in speech in debate. I did primarily LD, PF, and Extemporaneous speaking. I currently coach at Dougherty Valley High School.

Speaking style: I did some national circuit LD, so I'm receptive to some spreading. HOWEVER, please be clear. I will yell clear twice if you are being unclear, and thereafter if you are not I will begin deducting speaker points. It is probably to your benefit that I can understand you, because if I can't I will also just stop flowing. So if you are going to spread do it well- or just don't do it at all. That being said, I definitely do vote more heavily off the flow than I do just off speaking. Generally, I start speaks at a 27 and will add or deduct points based on what happens in round. If you are outrightly mean, you will not like your speaks. I understand that debate can often get heated and aggressive, but I think there is a difference between being really passionate and engaged and just being unpleasant. Don't be the latter.

Arguments: I'm receptive to most kinds of arguments (plans, counterplans, DAs, kritiks, etc.).

Full disclosure- when I debated I tended to air more on the traditional side in terms of argumentation. Also, please keep in mind that I did mainly LD, so I may not be as familiar with what is being run nowadays in parli. However, that doesn't mean I won't buy more progressive arguments, they just need to be well explained. Please don't just throw out buzz words and expect them to stick. If you are running a kritik, I will probably need a clear explanation of it as I am not too familiar with a lot of critical theory. Plans,counterplans, and DAs are generally fine. I have a few pet peeves - I don't like theory or topicality when it's run purely for strategical value. If there is real abuse, fine. But I think it's usually pretty apparent when you're just looking for an easy out. As long as your opponents do some work on it, I will not vote for you on it and it will reflect unfavorably in your speaks. I also dislike preempts (especially the unwarranted variety) because I think they are a form of lazy debating meant to place arbitrary restraints on an opponent. Additionally, I won't vote on arguments that on face are morally repugnant (ie. justifying genocide). How I evaluate arguments: First, I'll probably look to framework (LD instincts...) - but please don't leave all the work to me. I think the hierarchy of arguments is really subject to change based on what is presented in round. Weigh your arguments! I also don't believe in shadow extending. It's shady and really nonsensical. A drop is a drop. I like to think that I vote more flow-based than anything else, but if you do any of the things I've disclosed that I highly dislike, then I am probably less likely to vote in your favor if the round is close. TL;DR (but really, you should read) Spread only if you do it well, don't be mean, feel free to run any argument as long as you can explain it well, substantiate it and it is not offensive. Also, have fun!