Coffman,+Courtney


 * Courtney (Nunley) Coffman **
 * Background: ** I'm the director of debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. I graduated in 2008 after debating for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NFL, TFA). I was a "traditional" debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at Mean Green Workshops and GDS for many summers.


 * Judging Philosophy: ** I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on __ good __ extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. I'm not well-versed in dense philosophy, so if you decide to run that, please make sure it's comprehensible (ie, you should slow down).


 * Theory: ** I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I'm probably not the best judge for a super intense theory debate, but I think it's fine as another layer of the debate.


 * Policy Arguments:** YAY!


 * Speaker Points: ** I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; __so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy.__ Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will probably give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is really easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks.


 * Speed: ** I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 7 out of 10 on the speed scale.


 * Miscellaneous: ** I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.


 * New in 2016: ** There has been a (bad) trend in debate so far this year to just read a BUNCH of stuff and not tell me how everything interacts. Don't do this. You will likely not like my decision if I have to recreate the round after the round is finished because I don't know how arguments interacted. There needs to be some sort of story coming out of the round for you to get my ballot...So please, please don't just dump a bunch of cards on the AC and expect me to figure out what you wanted it to be responsive to!


 * Email chain/flashing cases:** If you do an email chain, my email is court715@gmail.com, add me to it please. Please make the process of flashing cases/emailing efficient. If it takes longer than 30 seconds for you to take care of this after prep has stopped, I will start prep again. Rounds are starting to take wayyyy too long because of this.

1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I aso won't be happy to 2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me. I can assure you that I would never think that genocide is justified. 3. Have fun!
 * Other things... **

// Updated 10/18/16 //