Hansen,+Rebecca


 * Rebecca Hansen**

Assistant Coach, Montville High School (NJ) 2009-present Former Head Coach, Whippany Park High School (NJ) 2002-2009

I am a former high school LD debater who has judged at a variety of local, state, district, and national tournaments for the last 20 years. I have coached in NJ for the last 15 of those years. I am probably thought of as more a traditional than a progressive judge, but I really avoid putting labels like that on myself. I have absolutely no problems with theory-based arguments, K's, a priori arguments, etc., if they are presented well and run effectively. I don't have many preconceived notions of how the round will unfold. The main things I expect are pretty straightforward: a well-researched, well-reasoned, logical presentation; tight, well-delivered rebuttals and clash (sign-posting, impacting, weighing of frameworks and contention-level analysis, extensions of offense); and a courteous, respectful demeanor towards your opponent. I don't want to be an interventionist judge, so please don't make me be one. When you crystallize the round, give me proactive reasons/voters as to why I should vote for you. Don't make me search around on the flow for reasons to vote for you. Make it very clear. I am open to arguments both traditional and out-of-the-box, but I don't consider myself a progressive judge per se. As I said earlier, I try not to put labels on myself. I am a very open-minded judge. As such, K's, theory, and other types of progressive arguments and case structures are fine, and I'm okay with speed, provided that you are speaking clearly. I will not say "clear" during the round, so don't ask me to. This is not policy debate! You need to enunciate clearly and monitor your own speed. Please do not hector and/or patronize your opponent during the round, or it will cost you speaker points. Regardless of the specific RFD, the name of the game is persuasion. A good debater should be able to adapt his/her style and persuade a wide variety of judges. If you are an effective debater, you will be able to monitor and adjust to any judge and any paradigm. At the end of the day, it's all about who was ultimately more persuasive. If/when I disclose my decision and offer an oral critique, you are entitled to disagree with my RFD. However, under no circumstances should you sit there and try to argue with me as to why I'm wrong and //you// really should have won. Don't think that you can use a post-round oral critique as an opportunity to try to persuade me to change my mind if you are unhappy with the decision. That is probably my biggest pet peeve, so please don't try to re-debate the round with me if you're not satisfied with the RFD.