White,+Neal


 * My Debate Background**

I did speech and debate in high school. I did UIL Policy for one year and extemp/congress/OO for two. I was nationally competitive in the last three events, and was terrible at Policy. In college, I coached extemp and congress part-time. This is my third year as a full-time teacher. I coach extemp, congress, OO, Info, PF, and LD.


 * Policy Debate**

I judge this event very rarely, so if you encounter me judging you here you should essentially treat me as a lay judge.


 * PF Debate**

Talking at a faster-than-average pace is fine but please avoid outright spreading. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not demand that the second speaking rebuttal or any summary speech do anything in particular. If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I also expect debaters to be able to state/defend the qualifications of every single piece of evidence they use.

The PF Debaters that do the best with me in rounds typically reference a few key arguments in the summary and final focus, and refrain from doing much line by line in those speeches.


 * Lincoln Douglas Debate**

//Speed//

Spreading, in general, is fine. However, while I like a fast debate, I find that I cannot handle the "top speed" of experienced LD debaters who prefer to spread. Make sure you slow down when you're reading something you want me to write down (tags, author names, advocacy texts, interp texts, etc.)

//Speaker Points//

30 - You are funny, spoke well, and will probably break and beat good debaters. 29 - You did a good job. A few issues but nothing too impactful. 28 - Ehh. You were rude and didn’t speak well and probably lost. 27 - You seemed like you didn't know what you were doing. 26 or lower - You told racist/homophobic/bigoted jokes and it was terrible and I will tell your coach.

//Types of ACs//

Traditional V/C ACs and policy ACs are right up my alley. While I'm open to any type of aff, the further your get away from those two styles, the more you'll have to slow down. I'm not intimately familiar with LD topic literature, and I'm not very familiar with more-than-basic philosophy.

//Types of Neg Arguments//

I'm fine with anything. Just make sure you're being clear about how the round breaks down from my perspective and where on the flow I should be looking to give you the ballot. I'm not a LD theory/philosophy veteran, and my lack of background knowledge there might confuse me if you run something crazy.

//Things That Annoy Me//

-Debaters who don't clearly signpost during a rebuttal speech. If I don't know where I'm supposed to be flowing your argument, I won't flow it -Debaters who extend their V/C, standard, role of the ballot or whatever over their opponents' but don't actually debate why their round-weighing-thing is a preferable way for me to view the round

//Things That Will Cause Me to Like You//

-Being nice to your opponent and judge before, during, and after the round. Be helpful, respectful, and civil. -Breaking down complex arguments in such a way that I can easily understand how they influence my vote. -Explaining clearly and slowly at the end of your last speech how the round breaks down in a way that will result in me giving you the ballot.

//Evidence//

In LD I default to the evidence rules of the NSDA (https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/High-School-Unified-Manual-2017-2018.pdf). The rules are on pages 27-31 of the PDF.