Botsch-McGuinn,+Sarah

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-present) Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)
 * Sarah Botsch-McGuinn**

I’ve been a Parliamentary debate coach for the past 7 years, and Director of Forensics for the past 6 at NDSJ. To that end, I’ve judged in many local invitationals (Cal, SCU, Stanford, SCU2, MLK, etc), including adjudicating many elimination rounds (including late elimination rounds). I was myself a college debater and did LD in high school (Parli was not introduced until after I was out of high school). I've judged finals for the TOC for the California Cup (Parli Debate's TOC) three times over the last few years.
 * General:**

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points.

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell.

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 6-9 point range on a 10 scale, with average speakers getting 6s, decent speakers getting 7s, good 8s, excellent 9s, and 10 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 5 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.
 * Speaks**:

That means, on a 30 point scale, you are most likely going to see a 26-28, rare cases being 29/30 or 25/below. If I gave you less than 24, you probably really made me angry or stood on a desk and waved your arms or something. Once I gave a team an 18 for being incredibly condescending and misogynistic to the other team and myself, but I see that as a very rare case.

I don’t subscribe to the belief that spreading makes debate more exclusive therefore should be preferred, but that doesn’t mean you’ll lose because you talk fast. There is an incredible distinction between speaking quickly to cover points and circuit style spreading, and trust me, I can handle either and have NO problem with the former. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.
 * Speed**:

Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.
 * A prioris**:

Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time.
 * Theory**:

I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.
 * Critical arguments**:

I presume neg, but I am receptive to "presume aff" arguments.
 * Presumption**:

I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please.
 * Weighing:**

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised.
 * Impacts:**