James,+Sam

I debated for four years for Millburn High School where I have recently returned to direct LD and PF debate. This is a second-job for me, so don't expect me to be as up to date with the hottest trends in the debate-o-sphere, but I have stayed consistently involved in debate somehow over the years since I competed. After HS, I competed in college, and then did moot court (law school version of oral advocacy), and have judged/coached here and there along the way, so I'd like to think I know a thing or two about good public speaking.

I won't say that there is any style of argumentation or case you cannot run in front of me, and though I'm pretty opinionated on most things policy related/law related/philosophy related, I will come into the room accepting what evidence is told to me, until it has been proven wrong by the opponent, etc. I guess if I have any preference whatsoever, it would be that you should run your most interesting/clever/educational case in front of me. It doesn't often happen- but I enjoy the rounds in which I learn something novel, and will reward you for it.

I enjoy a good framework debate and think that both people should give a clear method of how they would like me to evaluate the round. I also enjoy philosophy, it was my undergraduate background and I feel like I don't get to use it much these days, so you might get a a smile or extra speaker point, but I won't hold it against you regardless of what you run.

Bullet point items/suggestions:

1. Speed- I'm okay with it if you're using it as a vehicle to supply me with good information, not a fan if you're just spreading for spreading's sake. I'll probably be able to follow it, but might dock a point. If I'm NOT able to follow it (and I find this is mainly when people aren't speaking clearly, regardless of how fast they are going), I will say "clear" once, MAYBE TWICE, and then it's on you for ignoring my plea to adjust, if I can't flow it, it won't be evaluated.

2. Rudeness- I'm probably more of a stickler on this than most, but this is an educational activity, where adults are taking their time off to sit and listen to you COMPETE against an opponent. I expect you to do it civilly and I see no place for derogatory comments, personal attacks, or excessive arrogance. Please don't tell me your opponents argument is "the dumbest thing you've ever heard" or "makes literally no sense," because there's no need for it. Argue vehemently, respectfully, or you'll be docked, assuredly.

3. Theory- If there is a legitimate need, go for it, but don't just run blippy shells, or create abuse where none exists.

4. Evidence- I don't like calling for cards, it's your job to present and argue evidence, but if the meaning of a card is substantially in dispute, I will call for it. If it doesn't say what you've argued it says, I will be disappointed. Honor system.

5. Crystallize- It helps you, by helping me. Save a few seconds, and do it.

6. Roadmap- always. If you don't, don't get mad when I don't flow what you want, where you want it.

7. Timing/CX- Please time each other, if someone doesn't have a timer, let me know and I'll take mine out. CX is not prep time, I think it should be used it wisely and for its intended purpose. If both debaters are okay with flex prep and the tournament doesn't prohibit it, I won't object.

8. Timeliness- Tournaments only run on time if the rounds run on time, so be at the room early, not walking in 30s before the start time with an entourage and then say you need a few minutes to get set up. And in round, move efficiently between speeches/prep-time/etc. I'll enforce forfeit rules if the tournament has one, though I really hate doing this.

9. I used to love K's when the resolution made some legitimately questionable assumption or philosophical/logical flaw. don't love critical role of the ballot arguments. Discursive impacts that matter/reflect a real problem are very very rare. I don't often see true exclusion/racism/sexism/ableism/socio-cultural harms, etc, but I hear people running these anyway very willy-nilly. They should be used, when necessary, and only when necessary. In general this is where I get very traditional. The ballot directs me to pick the debater who proves or disproves a given topic...so immediately jumping to non-topical things absent real abuse/unfairness/need, seems wrong. And lets be honest, we know my ballot likely isn't going to effect real change in the world...it's going to decide who gets a slightly larger trophy, at most.

10. Slow down on authors, if nothing else in the round.