Taafel,+James

4 years high school experience, 4 years college Mock Trial experience, 2 years coaching.

For style and presentation, I do not favor spreading or excessive speed. Speaking somewhat faster than a conversational pace is fine, but talking as fast as an auctioneer is not. It will help to learn to be clear and economical with your words. Be professional and confident at all times, and do not become nasty or combative. Remember, you are here to persuade me.

Make sure to signpost arguments and cover rebuttals in an organized manner-no jumping all over the flow. You're welcome to take a few seconds before I start timing to tell me how you'll be approaching a rebuttal. I expect each argument to have a clear, logical connection to the resolution. Avoid abusive definitions of the resolution's terms (an abusive definition is one that goes well outside common meaning of a term and unfairly limits or invalidates your opponent's case), and try to resolve definition issues as early as possible in the round.

I'm mainly looking for a few things in a round. Demonstrate a solid understanding of the resolution to me, explaining what the main issues are.

In particular, help me weigh the round. Clash is crucial. I want to know not just why your fundamental position is important, but why I ought to favor it over your opponent's. I don't want to evaluate a contention in a vacuum-provide me the impact it has on the broader question, and show me why it matters. If you are running the standard value/criterion setup, make sure that they are substantially linked to the resolution. A value or criterion ought to make the round easier to understand and judge. A common error debaters make is to go back and forth on contentions or values without ever stepping back to link them to the resolution in a meaningful way.

Make sure to reserve enough time in your second rebuttal for crystallization/voting issues. Many debaters spend too much time rehashing arguments that have already been made. Don't be afraid to drop arguments then, provided they are inconsequential to the main issues of the round. You should use this time to summarize the main issues of the round as you see them and explain why I should vote for you. It's fine to explain to me why I should apply the same logic to more than one issue. I expect you to point out dropped arguments from your opponent in the round, but you must then also explain the significance it has on the debate.

I may comment on your arguments on the ballot, but I will make my decision based on what has been said in the round. However, if an argument contains a very glaring flaw or factual inaccuracy, I may not consider it, particularly if it's made in the 2AR.

I'd welcome a nontraditional approach that eschews the standard value/criterion setup, but tread carefully when running theory, and kritiks especially. I am not very familiar with them, so you must explain the argument step by step and persuade me why it is necessary. I am more willing to allow it for the Neg. I don't want to see arguments that are anti-competitive.

I'm happy to answer questions before the round starts.