Stanga,+Cheryl

=**Cheryl Stanga Despathy**=

(Updated: 1.14.2016 __Background:__ I debated for Wayzata HS (MN) and 3 years at Emory. I coached Wheeler HS for 3 years and Marist School for 3 1/2 years before taking a short break from debate competitively. I have coached Galloway School debaters for 2 years in both the Atlanta Urban Debate League and on the local Georgia circuit. __Rounds on this (domestic surveillance) topic:__ 8-10 rounds at Atlanta Urban Debate League tournaments; 4-6 rounds at Georgia tournaments __Years Judging HS:__ 10 (with a break in the middle)

Important ideas:
 * I don't care if you think its strategic to be fast. I NEED to flow you. Flowable (ie: clear, organized) debates make the judge happy. I don't claim to be the world's greatest flower. Just slow down - it makes us all happier at the end of the debate. This might mean you have to adjust your strategy to be able to debater a little slower in front of me.
 * I like impact calculus where the 2nd rebuttals tell me how to vote. I won't do this for you. Your 2NR/2AR should be my RFD.
 * I pretty much default to a policy making framework. I will listen to Ks but I think there should be something of substance and real things happening. I don't sit around and read critical literature and never will so you will have to do more to explain your K to me.
 * Organize! Organize! Organize! You should be able to easily isolate different levels of the debate - separate out the link, perm, solvency, etc debates to make it easier for me to clearly see your arguments. Label // everything //.
 * I //hate// calling for cards or feeling like I have to call for cards after the round, so make it obvious to me with your debate skills //during// the debate!

T - I have historically had a high threshold on T - you really have to prove some abuse or some blantent untopicalness (meaning prove why your interpretation is best, and don't be blippy either). This means well-articulated, slower explanations if you're going to really go for it. That being said, I think there is a strategic value in T. But if you think its a legit 2NR option, it needs to be down slowly enough for me to flow all the reasons much earlier in the debate as well as the 2NR.

K - I am a policy making judge and don't find kritiks to be persuasive. I don't really know yet how I should resolve super close or super bad kritik debates and tend to default to trying to find what action really happens in a world where my ballot is the act of legislation happening. I require a higher level of explanation that most judges - I don't sit around and read K lit (and never have and never will). (Repeating tag phrases won't get you that explanation either.)

D/A and CP (and theory) - I am persuaded more easily by specific links and case specific CPs. I dislike multi-plank counterplans. I dislike theory debates - unless its essential to your strategy. I don't know that I could vote on theory unless it was like T, slowly explained and all-in and had some real abuse story from the start of the theory flow, not just at the end, and follows a well-performed line by line from the start.

Performance/Alternative Debate - I'll listen. I am not totally opposed to its existence but I believe that there are better forums for these discussions outside of the HS debate world. These debates, however, reallllly need to have clash and clear reasons and warrants for voters. But, I am always entertained and enjoy the obnoxiousness of these rounds.

Above all else, everyone should have __fun__ and __learn__. I think these are really the only two reasons debate happens and I encourage it to continue to stay that way.