Kelly,+Chalen

I am a teacher and debate coach with 8 years of coaching experience currently working at Central Kitsap High School. I participated in high school forensics as an LD debater, and as an IE competitor. I believe debate is an educational activity that supports skills that are integral to the health of a participatory democracy. As such, I believe that clear delivery of your message is more important than domination of an argument by use of technical debate strategies like spreading. So, even though I can flow quickly, I won’t generally enjoy doing so, and I will probably drop any argument that is not delivered clearly. In this way I tend toward the traditionalist/classical style of judging. Clear language is preferred in my rounds. Focus on winning due to the central clash between cases, by articulating what that clash is. Go deeply into your key arguments rather than spreading out across all the possible arguments on the resolution.

As you debate, I prefer that you articulate your claim, provide warrants, impacts and links. If you try to convince me to extend, cross apply or drop an argument using only a two word blip I am unlikely to do so, I want your reasoning explained because your decision to drop an argument may be misguided and I want to know what your reasoning is. When you debate I look for: clarity, precision, originality, and evidence-based argumentation. I will flow the overall arguments, including what you say in CX and I like clearly articulated clash, with strong signposts, impacts and crystallization. I am not however a technical flow judge, I don't count you down just because you didn't tell me where to write something on the paper.

I appreciate a student written case that is clearly original because I think it helps students grow. I tend to prefer these original cases over group written cases. I also love philosophy and Kritical theory, so bring it on, but with caution. You need to speak clearly about your philosophy and convince me that you really understand it when you run it. The marriage of unique theory to practical application, grounded in strong real world examples, explained clearly and delivered with style describes the kind of debate I look forward to on any given weekend. On this note, I don't like theory when it focuses exclusively on technicalities like burdens, abuses and RVI's. In general I'll feel that you are wasting time on technicalities, and I don't appreciate a time suck on something minor when other bigger areas of clash are being dropped or ignored. When a student uses skills from other forms of debate, I am flexible, but my tendency is to prefer philosophically sound cases over plan-based arguments.

Other minor notes/preferences: I miss hearing arguments that take on thinkers like Chomsky, Freire, Kant, and Hobbes. I also enjoy a good EcoFeminist, Nietschzean, or Marxist argument. If you run a strong Kritic & analysis of the resolution, it will start you off in a good place with me. Follow that with a well thought out set of observations, then uphold your framework throughout the round and I'm likely to vote for you. I tend to consider Aff the more difficult argument, so Neg usually has to work a little harder to win. If it is done well, I'm open to a games player approach to a debate round, but it must be done extremely well, otherwise I'll go with the more practical, topical, and likely more convincing argument. For LD debaters using CX jargon, you may want to explain your terms as you go. I am willing to work with the CX approach to other forms of debate, but I want the best aspects of policy without loss of the uniquely valuable aspects of LD/Pub Fo etc...

As a traditionalist, I find the over use and abuse of flashing/laptop and other technology to be a problem for debate rounds.I observe too many debaters wasting time on sharing devices and on making their technology work. You should realize that your judge is not looking at your case or evidence, we are here to **listen** to your cases and to you. We are not here to watch you exchange documents with your opponent. If the debate is based on document exchange alone, I could stay home and read the debate from bed with a cup of coffee in my hand. When debaters forget that the judge is not able to read the document or the evidence, they forget that we are going on what you say rather than what is on the device or on the paper. Don't make me feel as though I wasted my time coming to see you debate in person. Simplify the process and bring sharable paper copies of your case so that the excuse of a dead piece of technology will not inhibit your success in a round, or create an unnecessary waste of time for all involved.

One last note, good presentation usually involves standing up to project and create a sense of presence in the room. Debaters that forget elements of presentation like this are missing out on easy speaker points.

In the end, my preferences are just that, preferences. If the overall better debating is done by a student running cases that are not in my preference area it will end up winning. Regarding after-round protocol, I will prioritize the needs of the tournament over time for in person debriefing of a round. Given time, I will discuss skills and concepts that individual debaters can develop further, just ask me. I look forward to hearing your arguments!