she/her

Can put me on the email chain: lauren [dot] burdt [at] gmail.com

Would prefer Tabroom's anonymized docs sharing if enabled

I coached national circuit LD in Iowa and Nebraska until 2018. Have coached students to late elims of the TOC and NSDA Nats. I've mostly been in tab rooms and judging locally since then, so my threshold for speed and recognition of new arg trends has gone down since then. Debate's your game; I'm happy to be in the back of the room for whatever you prefer to do as long as we're all safe and having fun. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well-researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate, I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

Couple specific things:

-Speed: Probably not keeping up with your top speed these days. Will yell slow and clear. If you're debating someone who asks you to slow down, I expect you to make your best efforts to ensure they can follow the debate.

-Theory/phil: Sure. This is how I debated. I enjoy framing-heavy debates that compare the applications of different ethical frameworks. Engagement > evasion; extensions of a dropped sentence fragment buried within a paragraph of analytics do not particularly excite me.

-T: Substantive topicality debates ("T as a turn to aff's method") typically fare better with me in the back of the room than "aff must read plan", but I'm down for whatever floats your boat.

-K: Sure. This is primarily what I coached. Feel like these debates have gotten more buzzwordy these days which is not a great strategy to pick up my ballot. I'm uninterested in imposing my own ideological preferences as a judge, and I'm open to experimentation with what debate can/should be. I judge a lot of clash debates.

-I'm not following along in the doc. I flow speeches straight down and I evaluate debates holistically. Explanation matters, judge instruction important, big picture storytelling good.

-I like it when debaters are nice to each other. Personality is fun, sass is fun, but I have a pretty low threshold for being annoyed with attitudes that work against building community. Community is more important to me than Ws and Ls. Have fun, be smart, and I'll do my best to evaluate rounds the way you tell me to.

About me: I generally judge Congress, speech, and sometimes PF. In high school, I primarily did extemp (mostly international) and congress at the local, state, and national level.

In college/graduate school I studied political science and philosophy and I currently work in editing/journalism. When they come up, I can handle more theoretical/philosophical arguments, especially if they're more in the domain of political theory or IR theory. That being said I do like debating the intricacies of policy as well. This paradigm is generally tailored to Congress (which I judge most of the time) but much of it can be applied to extemp and PF.

Things I like:

- Clash is great. Call people out! Don't be afraid to get a bit aggressive especially if someone tries to pull a stunt but don't veer over into sheer meanness. Direct refutation is especially preferred, particularly if you can point out how someone misread an article by telling me what it actually says.

- Sources sources sources. Especially interesting or underutilized sources like think tanks that aren't Brookings, AEI, CFR, etc. Or interesting news sites like The Intercept or foreign news like Rudaw. Or interesting journals. One time someone cited the American Journal of Potato Research in a round and I almost died from happiness. Doing some digging for something off the beaten path a) shows you care enough to do deep research and b) leads into my next point...

- ...interesting and unique points! Don't let debate get repetitious and show me some interesting and unique ways that a bill may affect something that is unexpected. An example: did you know that investing in infrastructure in Afghanistan like highways or public transit may actually let rural terrorism become more mobile and nationwide in urban areas? Or that Tibetan freedom activists are trying to improve their cybersecurity efforts to remove an epidemic of Chinese malware? Stuff like that is great.

- Extemporaneity is also really good. I hate canned speeches because they really reduce the possibilities of debate and the ability to directly refute arguments. And it allows you to be a more dynamic and engaging speaker. I prefer when people speak with notes in Congress and PF -- it's more natural than a memorized speech.

- Impacts!!!! Lots of Congress I have seen lacks direct impacts and linking sources/arguments to them. Tell me why something matters as well as how it matters. Ultimately this is a DEBATE event, and you should reflect that in your rhetoric.

- Enunciation. Don't slur your words together. I understand speaking fast but you can do that without letting speech get mushy. Be crisp.

- POs: I love when POs have personalities even if they are kind of supposed to fade into the background. Make some puns and some observations! This goes for everyone else. I love a good joke or witty statement.

- Pronouns: This should definitely be a norm in speech and debate at this point. If you're in congress, give them while you're walking up to speak. If in PF/speech, give them to me/the team before round. I.e. "That's Representative Maxwell Fenton, school code JD. I use he/him/his pronouns."

Things I don't like:

- Don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, classist etc. etc. Particularly avoid using slurs. If you get really offensive or get into a direct personal attack on someone I have no hesitation about ranking you the lowest possible score and if I know you, informing your coach of what you said.

- I hate when people judge or mention clothing on ballots and I won't dock you for not wearing a suit or whatever. I think people that do judge based on this are fundamentally classist (and maybe worse). That being said you should tuck in your shirt.

- If someone doesn't want to speak whatsoever don't push them to do it. They made the choice to show up and hang out for three hours while everyone else participated. Don't edit the docket because of this.

- Don't speak from your computer. Use a legal pad or notebook. It's super unwieldy and I'm always afraid someone will drop one.

- "Legislation" is a mass noun. There's no such thing as "a legislation," but there are such things as "pieces of legislation." Same with the word "economist" -- it's pronounced ee-KON-oh-mist, not the dreaded "eh-kon-OMM-ist." I have other word pet peeves like this but these are the big two I've seen in Congress/debate more generally.

- "Basic economics" is not evidence. Neither is "logic." Both of those things require sources and people disagree what they mean and how they matter.

- Repetition. One time I saw a Congress round where 10 people from the same school gave the same canned speeches on the No Child Left Behind Act with the same points, same sources, and same text. You will be ranked down if you rehash the same points over and over and over and over. See above for my love of interesting arguments and sources.

- Don't just sit there, particularly if you're in Congress. You're here for three hours. Give a speech or at least ask some questions.

- Disorganization. Give me a roadmap and an intro, and do the "walk" to split up your points visually as well as rhetorically.

- For intros, don't just say the subject and then move into the speech: i.e. "The national debt. I don't like it because...."

- If you're texting or Facebook messaging in round there's no way you're getting a decent rank. If you're using your phone to access sources because of a broken computer or something please tell me beforehand.

- "Are you aware...?" questions are loaded and stupid and demeans the intelligence of the speaker. Don't ask them. Same with questions that are essentially extended comments -- your statement should easily end in a question mark.

-----------------

If you have any questions, just ask me when you get to round!

Last updated April 2023.

I am a theatre director with a long background in performance, writing, and directing. My area of expertise is duo. I competed in high school, and last year, our team was ranked #15 in the nation. I also have a strong familiarity with POI, DI, and HI.

When judging speeches and interp categories, I expect to see confident, well-prepared, thoughtful, and honest speakers. I enjoy performances and speeches filled with creativity, emphasis on communication, and a heartfelt, honest quality that can't really be put into words. For any interp piece, your flashy tech and blocking is cool, but don't forget to ACT and make me BELIEVE what you're saying and doing! Please note that I judge also on your selection of literature. Any content with sexist, racist, classist, or ableist overtones will be scored accordingly. Speeches and interpretations on pieces regarding these matters are incredibly important, of course, but we must always consider whose voice is being amplified, and what exactly we are trying to communicate. Be wise and considerate!

In extemp & impromptu, speak confidently and passionately. Make good eye contact. Address the prompt in impromptu without going on random tangents that don't tie in. In extemp, make it possible for a layperson to understand. I enjoy extemps that are kind and educational, not just filled with tons of confusing facts and jargon.

For info, the visual is important. Be creative, or at least be neat. Be funny and engaging, but don't forget to INFORM!!

For duo, I expect to see balance between partners, strong emotional content, and some interesting tech and blocking. Tell the story with heart!

For DI, I expect to see something that I believe. That's really all I'll say.

For POI, I want to see something new, fresh, and original. Binder tech is cool and everything, but what are you saying? Why are YOU saying it? Make me believe what you're doing and talking about.

For HI, be creative with characters, have clean pops, have great forward energy, use an appropriate script, and don't choose something that just bags on women or minorities. Let's do better, yeah?

For all other speech categories, this is a SPEECH contest. The writing of your piece is extremely important of course, but it is your DELIVERY that really brings it home!

Plain and simple: communicate. If you don't communicate with me and your audience, you missed your mark. I will do everything in my feedback to help you improve. I am not the kind of judge who will just destroy you with rude feedback (unless you are rude to me). Problematic content and jokes will be pointed out, I have zero tolerance for them (and I'm not talking about language, I'm talking about openly promoting oppression). My goal is to help you improve wherever you are at. If you're at nationals ready to hit the final stage, great. If you're just starting, all the more power to you. Everyone can get better at this activity.

If you desire more feedback, you may always email me at ehageman@siouxlandchristian.org.

Extemp:

I competed in extemp for three years at Edina HS. My career highlights were reaching NCFL and NSDA National finals. Since then, I have coached MBA RR invites, NSDA, ETOC, UKTOC, and NCFL national finalists at Shrewsbury HS (MA) and Edina HS (MN), where I currently coach. I have also privately coached students in South Florida and South Texas and have some familiarity with those circuits.

I am what you might call a content judge. But I do care about time and time allocation (it’s not a fair competition if you get 8 minutes while your opponents get only 7; tough to make a good argument in only 30 seconds, etc.).

This is how I will rank you and your opponents, items rank-ordered:

1. Did you answer the question? If you answered the question, I evaluate you against others who answered the question. If not, vice versa. This is the most important point for me as a judge. He or she who provides the best answer to his or her selected question will win the round. If you do not answer the question — giving a “how should” answer to a “will” question, for example – expect to earn a bad rank. I've watched NSDA and TOC finalists fail to answer the question and I did not hesitate to give them the 5.

2. Did you emphasize the arguments? Did your claims have warrants? Did you terminalize your impacts back to the question? Importantly, were there contradictions within your substructure or between your points (even if these weren’t expressely articulated, the logical conclusion of one point may contradict that of another point)?

3. With what sources did you corroborate your arguments? Were your sources recent? High quality? Did you consider the key experts in the field?

4. How were the performative elements (delivery)? Did you exude confidence and use your voice and body to command the space? Did you offer a relevant AGD? Were you monotone or did you provide vocal variety? Did you have on-tops? Did they meaningfully contribute to the speech?

I care least about delivery because evaluations of delivery are necessarily subjective. Just as people react differently to jokes, judges will find performative elements (humor/emotions) differently entertaining/funny/sad/etc. In my mind, a content focus is the only consistently fair judging paradigm for extemp.

When deciding between two or more high quality extemp speakers, I find that four things set speakers apart (not rank-ordered, all items matter to me):

1. Difficulty of question. If two speakers provide equally good speeches but one speaker answers a much more difficult question (triads, obscure policies/issues, etc.) that speaker may earn a better rank (same logic as opp. averages as a tie breaker).

2. Quality of sources. Did you cite think tanks, esteemed professors/thinkers, journals, BOOKS?

3. Framing the question. Did you give me key background on the actors/terms in the question and tell me the gravity/importance of the question? Did you explain to me what an answer means in terms of the wording of the question (what it means for a policy to be “successful” or “effective” etc.)?

4. Delivery/wit.

Debate:

Add me to the email chain: tannerhawthornej @ gmail.com. I coach Edina HS PF and extemp speaking.

I debated LD and PF for Edina High School for three years. I’m now a junior at Dartmouth, I'm on the policy team. I personally know Raam Tambe.

I can flow fast and will evaluate all arguments. The winner of my ballot will be the better debater(s), not the the debater(s) that run args I like. As such, I won't draw arbitrary lines at certain types of arguments. Speaks will suffer if a debater is rude/offensive. If you have more questions feel free to ask before the round.

For PF, I will not evaluate offense that’s dropped in summary. If you go for something in final focus it needs to be in summary (except d). PF is more about persuasion than the other debate events, I’ll keep that in mind. Weigh or you’re asking for intervention. Don’t really care about speed for PF but I haven’t seen speed give much of a competitive advantage on PF. Evidence ethics is the biggest problem I’ve encountered in PF. I will call for cards so be ready to have good evidence ethics. I will give incredibly low credence to bad ev ethics. Analytic responses are fine, misconstruing evidence is lying.

For LD, I’m good at flowing the T/CP/DA/stock FW debate but often don’t know the K lit. This doesn’t mean I’ll drop Ks, I just need a clear articulation. It probably needs to be slower than you're used to. I won't flow what I can't understand. Slow down for theory. You’re calling out in round abuse not reading a card so I need to understand what you’re saying. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory.

For Policy, my experience is one term competing in college on the NDT/CEDA circuit.

Background: I was a PF debater from 2014-2016 on the local and national circuit. I am a recent graduate of the University of Iowa (Go Hawks!) and am pursuing a career as an actuary.

Debate Preferences:

• In the rebuttal, the team which speaks second should both attack the opposing team's case and defend their own case against attacks by the opposing team.
• Please collapse the round in the second half. If your opponents decimated one of your arguments and you don't have adequate defense, don't waste your time trying to prop it up. The most successful debaters are those who understand the context of their round and can pivot to frame the round around elements they are winning.
• Essential defense should be extended in the first Summary.
• If something is not mentioned in the Summary, it will not be flowed in Final Focus.
• I really appreciate voters in Summary and Final Focus.
• Weighing makes my job a lot easier. If no weighing occurs, you lose control of the round.
• I do not flow crossfire. If something important happens in cross, tell me in a speech.

Speaking Preferences:

• Organization: Please signpost whenever possible. Good organization helps me make a fairer decision and usually results in a better round of debate.
• Speed: I can handle some speed, but remember -- this is PF. Your clarity and eloquence will be reflected in your speaker points.

Evidence:

• I prefer that evidence be initially introduced by direct quote, but if you must paraphrase, please ensure you represent the evidence accurately with regard to its meaning, intent, and context. In later speeches, feel free to (accurately) paraphrase but make sure all evidence is connected to an author or organization for flowing purposes.
• After frequently dealing with teams using inaccurately paraphrased evidence during my time as a debater, I have zero tolerance for bad evidence. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if there is any question as to its credibility. Please have evidence either as a cut card or highlighted in a PDF. If I conclude that evidence has been misrepresented, I will drop it from the flow and drop speaker points as appropriate.

Arguments:

• While I am open to any argument, I am not very familiar with how to evaluate arguments that deal with Ks/theory/etc. You will have to work harder to explain to me why I should care.
• Creative/unexpected arguments can be fun, but they still need to be well-supported, well-warranted, and impactful to be effective.

Other Items:

• I will do my best to keep time, but please time yourselves as well to keep everyone accountable.
• Please be respectful to your opponents. The inability to do so will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please add me to the email chain: kepner.collin@gmail.com
• Feel free to ask me questions about what you read here! Debate is an educational activity, and adapting to your audience is an important skill that you will utilize for the rest of your life.

NOTE: I am always happy to provide additional feedback if desired (feel free to email me at klynpar@gmail.com). Speech and debate is awesome, please stick with it if you’re reading this especially if you’re in Iowa. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions

Am decently experienced in Congress and Speech as well, I coached national qualifiers in each in my first year as coach (22-23)

Favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and OO

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

Public Forum paradigm

[NATIONAL CIRCUIT ONLY — local competitors just do your best, your coach should’ve taught you how to win PF at a fundamental level, I give really extensive and constructive feedback]

Include me on the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com)

Just win baby! [Win the round. There are a million different tactics and strategies and paths to victory in PF. If you genuinely believe you won a debate round, you should be able to tell me why and how you won.]

I’m a tech judge (tabula rasa and all that), I flow on my computer using Flower

Best way to win the round is to do the work for me

Be kind and respectful, it would take a lot for me to change a ballot because of this but I’m pretty quick to change speaks if it’s rough

Extend everything you’re going for through every speech except 1st rebuttal

I vote on impacts/voters unless the framework set forth is something other than stock benefits/harms or cost-benefit analysis

Speed is fine, obviously if you're spreading just send a speech doc

I don’t flow cross but I pay attention, it’s fun, you should be able to extemporaneously explain things

Instances where I intervene: (1) being abusive (2) theory debates (full explanation below, I'd rather you just do a substance debate) (3) fabricating/misrepresenting evidence (although I'd just prefer the other team call it out, it sucks but if I'm sitting here as a judge and I'm like "that seems false to me" I feel like you should have those instincts too.... I'm not one of those judges who calls for like nine cards after FF)

Speaker points: 0/minimum = abuse, 26 = novice, 27 = needs improvement, 28 = solid, 29 = excellent, 30 = a top debater at this specific tournament the score is given out; I give speaker points for clarity and quality of argumentation (if there's a low speaker point win, the low team won "on the flow" but the higher team were generally better speakers and arguers and probably won the "truth" debate but not the "tech" debate). I don't bump speaks for anything arbitrary, it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw bc another team mentioned a le epic meme in their speech and I definitely am skeptical of people who do this even if it seems innocuous.

(Also, Iowa judges who are reading this paradigm: The speaker point range is 26-30 in 2023, with 26 meaning "the student was a really bad speaker." It's not a decade ago where it was 20-30. Stop making students freak out and arbitrarily lowering their seeds by giving them a 26-27 unless they truly deserved it.)

Theory: [TL;DR: I would rather you just do a substance debate, but I will vote up warranted disclosure shells as well as in-round violations like paraphrasing, misgendering, etc.]

Outside of those, I will vote for a team that introduces theory if you convince me on a personal level that the progressive argument is worth voting for, not necessarily on the flow. As far as I'm concerned, if you sufficiently defend yourself from a theory shell, the only offense you need is in the actual substance/resolution debate. Finally, if I can show a bit of humility, I just don't feel that confident evaluating it compared to my decade of stock PF experience. Feel free to strike me if that spooks you haha, no worries, I like that debate is malleable and forward-looking. And hey, if you read this paradigm (like I know you will) and you say "screw it, I'm gonna run what I want to run," I kinda admire that!

Full explanation: On a personal level, I don’t like theory, I think the fundamental goal of PF is having high school students learn as much as possible about a specific topic/resolution and debate it. "Being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Theory goes against the initial reasons PF was created, which were talking about issues pertinent to the US and the world in a literal “public forum” — nobody’s going on Crossfire or interrupting city council meetings to talk about the inequity between speakers because life/backgrounds/resources are always going to be inherently unequal. To be clear, my perspective is one of somebody who grew up in rural Iowa in a town of 9,000 people and as the current head coach of a forensics program for a school where 56% of our student body is economically disadvantaged — I’m aware of inequality between schools and debate programs. I’ve seen teams from my school lose preposterous and arbitrary theory debates to schools with $45k yearly tuition and ten debate coaches (I’m coaching alone), debates where the primary justification for the progressive argument was “supporting small schools.” Do you see how ridiculous that is? By the way, the last (and only!) time a "small school" team made it to TOC finals was 2006, before Ks and theory were even PF conventions... so it's obviously not working that well? Also, if you're not running a specific theory shell in each round that warrants it, it feels extremely cynical and exploitative. For example, if you're running Round Reports theory, why aren't you running that shell every single time a team doesn't do Round Reports? Because you know some teams are better at responding to it than others and some judges are better at evaluating it than others -- and if your progressive argument is a strategic move rather than a genuine gripe/concern/issue, it completely undermines your argumentation from the start. Anyway, my attempt to “bridge the gap” between not personally liking theory but wanting to recognize all legitimate debating styles is this: I become truth > tech when it comes to theory. If you convince me as a person, not as a judge/flow-er, that you have won under a progressive argumentation framework, then I’ll vote for you. So in the above example of a team with ten coaches at a private school with $45k tuition running round reports theory against my program using "small schools" as the justification, who do you think would win?

I pretty much always buy: disclosure, paraphrasing
I'm open to but I'd much prefer you just do a substance debate: Round Reports, bracketing, topicality (just debate it substantively instead of as a shell)
You have to convince me the truth of your shell for: K-adjacent shells, all theory that is generally considered to be "frivolous"

In other words, if this was phrased like an LD pref sheet, mine would be like: LARP - 1, Theory (disclosure + paraphrasing) - 2, Other non-friv theory - 3, K - 4, Friv/tricks - 6

Ks: Again, I'm truth > tech when it comes to these, I think one of the best parts of debate is that you have to advocate for things you don't actually believe in (I'm anti-capitalist and pro-labor and had to argue that welfare recipients should be drug tested when I was in high school, for example), and if a K is run "correctly" (i.e. with a completely tech judge) I don't really know how the opposing team is necessarily supposed to win. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the "role of my ballot" is anything other than "vote for the team that debates the resolution the best"

Frameworks: I consider these (including structural violence) to be part of the substance debate so go for it, so long as you warrant it -- too often I see people say "our framework is X" without actually providing a reason why

Best debaters on the 22-23 national circuit I watched: Michael Hansen, Ishan Dubey, Elizabeth Terveen, Samuel Grinberg, Zeke Ehrenberg, Ryan Jiang, Vivian Yellens, Calvin Goldsberry

--------------------------------------- [PFers stop reading] -------------------------------------------

Speech

Interp: Please have a clear theme or focus to your performance (It's why piece selection is so important -- please don't get frustrated if I downgrade a performance if I don't enjoy the piece. A prurient example of this is me judging my local circuit's DUOs one year. There was a performance of an excerpt from "Little Women" that was performed/acted beautifully... but the script was just horribly boring and the outdated language + no context for the full story of the [excellent!] novel just made it impossible to get into, so I never ranked them very high despite their great talent. In other words, be entertaining and compelling!)

Extemp: This event doesn’t leave a lot of leeway, the only consistent thing I see people do that hurts them is not answer the question accurately even if they have solid speaking/organization/etc.

OO/INFO: Persuade me and/or inform me, and just generally be compelling and/or entertaining, if you don’t do those things you probably won’t finish very high

Impromptu/Spont: Not telling (:

Congress

Bills: Please make them workable and just generally make them make sense, I hate disorganized and unfocused bills that have zero real-world implication

1st aff: This speech has no excuse to not be rock-solid because you technically have had a week-ish to write it, I’m way more willing to drop 3s and 4s on 1st affs that aren’t effective, give me your impacts clearly and show me why on a human level this bill is needed

1st neg: Need to respond to 2 things: the 1st aff and the bill itself, please do both otherwise it’s not worth the time and either the bill or the 1st aff’s arguments go unchecked

Subsequent speeches: These should be extemporaneous and directly respond to arguments previously made, do not be redundant with previous speeches on your side, I value speaking and argumentation above all

Questioning: Why are Congress competitors so afraid to ask questions? Most Congress speeches at least on the local Iowa level have major flaws either in argumentation/logic or in interpretation/workability of the bill, please call these flaws out if you see them, it’s not disrespectful or bad decorum to use your designated questioning time

Presiding: If I can essentially forget that you exist, you’ll get a really high rating, but if you’re constantly asking the parli for help/stumbling over procedure/messing up recency you won’t be ranked at all

Overall: Give me impacts, actually work really hard in preparation both before and during the session, speak well, and run an efficient and compelling debate

Lincoln-Douglas / Policy / World Schools

Minimal experience, but I'm always excited to learn more! I'm confident in my ability to evaluate arguments and debate but I'll probably get lost if you use excessive event-specific jargon, so please hold my hand a little haha. My overriding philosophy of tabula rasa, keeping judge ballot interference out of decisions, etc. also applies here

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

BS- Speech Communication, MBA. Competed at the National Level in IE events. Qualified for NFA and AFA NIET in persuasion/info/extemp/impromptu. Graduate Assistant for a Department of Theatre.

Limited Prep:

Looking for clear speech structure and signposting. Would rather hear a really great, thought out speech than a rushed speaker that should have used more prep time.

Prose/POI/HI/DI/Duo etc:

Looking for clear defined character development and script selection.

Info/Persuasion etc:

Looking for well researched and cited speeches in memorized events. Bonus points for compelling topics.

*In all events: will reward polished events and good sportsmanship amongst competitors when on the fence! Looking for language that is appropriate for all ages, unless the omission would significantly impact the script.

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In the past 12 years, I've almost exclusively coached Speech events at Lakeville North High School. I taught at Gustavus speech and PF camps when those were still around and have been teaching Extemp Speaking at ISD the past four summers.

If I'm judging you in a Debate round, please know that the time I've spent away from Debate means I'm not necessarily familiar with how practices for each of the events have evolved. If fast and technical are your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no promises that I can entirely. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so you may need to watch and adjust. Chances are I'm unfamiliar with topic-specific lit or whatever critical lit is currently in style so you may need to do more connecting of the dots in order to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, ask before the round.

PF - I have been judging PF for around 7 years now. I am a judge that listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution.

Congress - I am looking for you to know the Robert's Rules of Order as well as seeing you participating in the debate by asking questions. In terms of your speech, I would like to hear a clear structure for your speeches. I want to hear the impacts of your points and I want you to be very familiar with your speeches as well. Make sure to bring up new arguments when a bill has been debated for awhile.

LD - I do not have much experience judging LD currently. Please focus on argumentation and impacts rather than the jargon that goes along with LD. Tricks, theory, etc. will not work with me. Also, speed is discouraged during your speeches. Please make sure I can follow your supporting evidence and arguments. I am familiar with PF and judging PF.