Ellis,+Dyson

(Last edited 2/10/15- revisions Background, Flexprep, Theory, rewrote previous "LD Specific" section as "Truth-Testing vs Comparing Worlds" section)


 * Background**: I debated for 3 years of high school Policy debate from 1999-2002. I then judged the next two years for my former high school before focusing on my studies. During my hiatus I majored in history, also studying political science, and classical civilizations at university before getting my master's in teaching. My return to debate came in the spring of 2011 when I accepted the head coaching position at Alta High School. I was the coach there until Summer 2013 when I moved to Arizona. I have been the coach at Desert Ridge High since fall 2014. Most of my recent experience in debate has been as a coach and teacher, teaching the events, analyzing topics, critiquing arguments with debaters before and after tournaments, and reviewing ballots. I have judged both LD and Policy, but definitely more LD than Policy in the last 4 years. Most of my paradigm should apply equally to Policy and LD except where stated.


 * Speed and Structure**: Communication is key in debate, and if I can't understand what you're saying, then I'm definitely not flowing it. Even if I can understand what you're saying, if you're not slowing down for tags and analytics, then chances are I'm not getting it on my flow. As such, I feel that some judge intervention is needed on the issue of speed. If I can't understand you in the constructives I will let you know by telling you "slower" if you're going too fast for me, or "clear" if more clarity is needed. By rebuttals I will stop intervening because you've hopefully at that point gotten a sense of my comfort level. On the clarity front, make sure you are giving me a clear structure to your speech and differentiating between framework, contentions, theory, etc. __When extending points, don't just say "Extend points A, B, and C as they were dropped by my opponent" in rebuttals. When extending give me warrants for the point, the extension, and the purpose it serves in the round.__


 * Speaker Points-** The two biggest places I score you on speaker points are CX and rebuttals. In order to receive top speaker points, you need to make your arguments passionately without becoming rude. Don't lose your ethos by being demeaning, sexist, racist, classist, etc. What does a good speaker look like? It varies in each debate and I don't want to prescribe a single definition for those reading. Showing me your personality in your speeches helps. Humor is awesome if you can make it work with your arguments and also will increase your speaker points. The most important thing to me for speaker points is are weighing the round's arguments eloquently. That means being both concise and vivid in your language and supporting them with your warrants. If you do this well, you can expect high speaker points.

My usual rubric for assigning speaker points: 30- Perfection. Rarely seen. 29- Excellent debater, you follow the above paradigm extremely well. Tough to receive 28- Above average debater, things still need polishing 27- Average, there are some weaknesses that need addressing to earn higher. 26- Need to work on a few of the things I'll list for you in my critique and ballot. 25 or (rarely) lower- You were rude or offensive.


 * Cross Examination-** Anytime you are speaking I feel you should be standing and facing me, the judge. That's the way I was taught, but is no longer the norm. If you are sitting down during cross examination, please make sure you are projecting and speaking to me. Answer the questions you are asked. A big pet peeve of mine is acting like the opponent should know your the argument already and acting put upon if you have to answer questions about your arguments. THAT'S THE POINT OF CROSS EXAMINATION, so answer the questions. Do so passionately. Having a specific line of questioning you want to pursue that allow you set up your team's next speech in advance is the mark of an good debater. If you are giving the next speech, during cross-examination you are likely prepping, (which is why I don't like, but allow tag team cross-ex) but don't miss out on also paying attention to your partner's good points your opponent's problematic answers. Make sure you bring up those points in your speech.


 * Flexprep ** - Don't like it, but it's your prep time, do what you want with it. I give more leniency in how I view not answering a question asked during flex prep than I would in regular cross examination time.


 * Rebuttals and Weighing the Round:** Obviously the important speeches in a round are your rebuttals. In Policy, you should be saving most if not all prep for these speeches so they win the round for you. In LD, you should definitely be saving prep for your NR and 2AR. Give me a brief overview in your rebuttal of how you feel the round is going, then spend the rest of the speech crystallizing your arguments and weighing them against that of your opponent. The earlier you can do this in the round the better. 2NC in policy isn't too early, nor is the 1AR in LD. As you are crystallizing the round, give me your voters with warrants as to why they should be the deciding factor in why you should win. If your opponent has already given voters, make sure you give counter-warrants as to why they shouldn't decide the round, or why you win the round on their voter. Review your voters at the end of the speech, time permitting. In LD, make sure you are using the framework explain and justify why the impacts matter and are most important.


 * Theory-** I have a high threshold for voting on theory. I will vote on it when the argument includes in-round impacts to the round detrimental to education or fairness, not just potential impacts or abuse. I often look to drop the argument, not the team much of the time. If you are thinking about what to go for with me look to the other parts of the flow before you make theory a top voter unless you feel it really is the most important issue. If it is a framing issue, make sure you are explaining how it frames the round. If you choose to go for theory, make sure you warrant and impact that argument extremely well. When reading theory, make sure you slow down considerably in order for me to flow it, especially for your interpretation.


 * Kritiks-** I like continental philosophy, which is the basis for most kritiks. I like it a lot and like learning more about it as well. I don't like how it is often misused or misunderstood in debate rounds. Spewing a kritik card that has your link, impact and alt all in one makes little communicative sense especially if you are going for discursive impacts. If you want to have a debate on the issues of post-modernism/structuralism make sure understand your authors and arguments. If you haven't read multiple articles or a book in its entirety on the subject, you likely aren't prepared to advocate it in a debate round. If you have sufficient understanding to explain the argument to your opponent and to me during your speech and respectfully answer questions during cross examination (see the section above), then by all means present your arguments. This goes for other unique arguments as well.


 * Prep Time-** Prep times end when you have removed your flash drive from the computer **__and__** stopped typing. As your opponent is flashing your evidence, you should not be typing either. This means in policy your partner needs to also stop typing until your speech starts. Don't steal prep, as I will be sure to warn you and it will make me like you less when it comes time to giving speaker points.


 * Truth Testing or Comparing Worlds**- The more I have judged LD over the last two years, the more I have moved away from truth testing framework of evaluating the resolution and more towards the comparing worlds framework, but I leave my mind open. This is just an update. Change my mind on this issue.