PF PARADIGM:
 If you are coughing, please wear a mask in round.
 Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking. 
 Theory does not belong in PF so please do not run it! If you want to run theory, there are two other debate events where that works. PF was designed for a reason and I am super baffled by the race to make it as much like Policy as possible when it is not Policy! The shorter speaking times make PF a very specific genre of debate; arguments that play out in Policy or even LD do not translate well in PF.
 Kritiks: See theory above
 Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.
 I am up for a fast paced round where delivery is at a fairly rapid clip. Spreading, however, has no place in PF so do not go there. See my comments about theory above.
 As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!
 Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.
 I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round because you think they sound cute or persuasive. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes.
 Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.
 I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."
 Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain.
 Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!
 I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.
 I hate short, blippy cards and reading one right after another is actually really hard to flow.
 Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments.
 

 maryrosekohan@gmail.com
 

 

 

 

 POLICY PARADIGM:
 Head Coach George Washington High School.
 If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.
 Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing. 
 If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.
 1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.
 2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it. 
 3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.
 

 

 LD Paradigm
 Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.
 I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.
 Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.
 As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.