Esbenshade,+Brittany+Rose

**Brittany Rose Esbenshade**
//3 years of HS LD at Federal Way High School, 3 years of NPDA parli at Western Washington University. I’ve been judging high school LD for 4 years, and was the assistant debate coach to the Bellingham School District teams for one of those years. I studied political science and communications as an undergraduate, I’m going to grad school to get my masters in teaching in social studies and English.// //- - - - - -// “The debate round is not about me, it’s about you. Argue anything you want in any way you wish, as long as you can defend it if it is contested. I do my best to intervene as little as possible.” (Thomas Brugato)
 * Positions:** It’s your round, do what you want to do. That said, I prefer debates that are engaging, education, and generally more exciting- something that teaches me something new, brings the topic to a different level or just generally keeps me interested in the round. I prefer unique arguments to generic, even on “generic” positions.
 * Weighing & Voters:** Debaters should provide a clear decision-making calculus in which extended arguments are clearly prioritized and, if necessary, weighed. Period. Things not measurable through the winningest decision making calculus won’t factor into my decision (unless of course, there are multiple calculuses in which you must explain to me which comes first and why). The easiest way to get me to not vote on something is to explain how it doesn’t weigh through the chosen mechanism. If no clear mechanism is decided upon by the debaters or won by either side, then I generally default to net-benefits.
 * Theory:** I understand theory debate, and I think it can be a very strategic argument and can serve an important function in the round, but I am by no means a theory hack. I tend to be persuaded by good arguments that tell me there is no in-round abuse (although I am also persuaded by good arguments about how a lack of in-round abuse doesn’t matter… I’m just generally persuaded by good arguments ;P )
 * Speed:** I do not have any problem with speed, but there is a limit to how fast I can flow. Unlike in policy, LD has no card catch-up and most frameworks consists of one-sentence analytics. So you can go fast, but I wouldn’t go at full policy speed. I will yell “clear” if I cannot flow your arguments, but not more than once a speech.
 * Reading Evidence:** I DO NOT card call at the end of the round UNLESS it is requested by the debaters, AND ONLY if there has been a crucial disagreement over its meaning in-round. I will not read one because it was not clearly conveyed by the debaters when read initially. I consider that intervention and it would function to infinitely extend the debater’s speaking time. It is your responsibility to ensure that I understand your arguments. Please keep that in mind as you articulate arguments and explain how they function in a round.
 * Speaking Points:** I use speaker points to express my general feelings about a round in place of rewarding a win/loss to whichever person I tend to like the best. If you make a really terrible argument, but you win it, I might still vote on it, but I might dock you speaker points. If you have a lot of distracting mannerisms when speaking, mumble a lot, etc, I will probably dock you speaker points. Good strategy, good arguments, good presentations, and nice manners will get you more speaker points in front of me.
 * Pet Peeves:** “that’s abusive” is not a sufficient argument to reject a particular item in a debate. You should tell me why X is abusive, what the standards for abuse are, what the alternative to running abusive X would be, and what I should do with it (reject X, vote against them for running X, etc). Also, “this is LD, not policy” is not, and never has been, an argument. Also, no need to shake my hand at the end of the round, swine flu and all, it’s not my thing.Oh also, when extending arguments, extend the argument, not "author X card." I don't usually write the name of the author down, I write the argument & year & maybe a first initial, but there are few things that irritate me more in round than listening to "cross apply Ferguson to the Anderson card. " ugh.