Skarr,+Teresa

I’m an Assistant Coach for the Windsor High School debate team and have been judging various speech and debate events for the past three years. My college major was International Relations, and I took almost enough classes to earn a second degree in Biochemistry. I’ve worked in the medical device industry for 25 years. My main work is to review reports and ensure the data is robust enough to support global regulatory approval processes. My background gives me a global perspective and my work experience makes me a tough critic of evidence and data. Conclusions should be supported by data from reliable sources and/or well-conducted studies, and arguments should be clear and logical.
 * Background and Experience **

I set up with a flow pad and appreciate participants’ last names and speaker order so that I can provide accurate speaker notes on my ballot. I also typically write the topic on the top of the ballot, which will help you know what round it was when you read it later.
 * My Process **

I generally take a lot of notes during constructive speeches and expect participants to time themselves so that I can concentrate on what you’re saying.

I try to keep a “poker face” and keep an open mind until the end of the round. Please don’t assume anything else about this. If I’m looking at you and/or taking notes, that means I’m following you.

If you won one of my rounds, please don't assume I agree with the side you argued. I vote against my bias about half the time.

Participants who demonstrate:
 * Preferences **
 * Courtesy to opponents and partner
 * Original thinking rather than reciting something they learned long before the tournament. (Note: I’m familiar with many pre-written K’s, and if you’re going to run one, please make it original.)
 * Ability to think on their feet, e.g., good handling of POIs and refutations
 * Ability to listen and refute opponents’ arguments effectively; I love “turns”, assuming they’re well supported
 * Knowledge about the subject
 * Good organization and sign-posting; participants who also help me understand their opponents’ case receive extra credit, especially if opponents’ case is confusing
 * Ability to relate the topic to broader issues and connect it to examples / stories
 * Ability to cite relevant data or evidence; please speak slowly when citing references
 * Excellent speaking style, especially cadence, tone and eye contact

Participants who:
 * Pet Peeves **
 * Lie or make up evidence
 * Behave in a rude or discourteous manner
 * Put words in their opponents’ mouths
 * Run topicality every time they’re on Neg no matter what the Aff side said; Note: T’s can be appropriate; please run one if it’s warranted.
 * Act like “Pop goes the weasel” with POOs during rebuttals for every little perceived infraction. POOs can be appropriate but I find them annoying and unnecessary / unsupported at least half the time.
 * Spread
 * Reject all POI requests and then stop speaking 2 minutes early
 * Speak in a roundabout manner that’s difficult to follow
 * Tell me that I must vote a certain way
 * Tell overly personal stories