This is my 13th year coaching competitive debate. I like to hear good debate. I want kids to improve and succeed in this activity. When everyone competes better, the whole activity gets better. You having a good round is my goal. If you are a new debater, this is all you need to know. For the more experienced students, read on.

Updates for 2023 season.

Ask me if you do not understand or want clarity on the below.

I won't vote for positions that are overtly harmful or advocate harm.

I am typically a tech judge, as I would like to not intervene in the round. However...

I will not accept claims that are not warranted. It is not my job to blindly accept your arguments when they are incomplete.

If you run phil arguments, I will accept your interpretation of the phil... to an extent. However, if the phil you are arguing is something way of base or you have a gross misunderstanding, I will not accept it. You should have a basic understanding of what the difference principle or categorical imperative or whatever means that actually resembles it. It's not exactly fair to your opponent that you don't know what you are actually running. It leads to too much confusion for your opponent, and I will simply default to your opponents weighing mechanism, or a standard debate weighing mechanism.

Basically, on a truth to tech scale, put me as a 2 for your phil and a 7 for everything else.

If you are going to run a K and do not have all the elements of a K, do not waste your time. I will exercise my roll of the ballot by voting for the trad debater. (If you do not understand the joke I put in the last sentence, that is your sign a K is a bad idea).

General notes

I vote on my flow, and dictate my decision based on the arguments that I am told to vote on in the round.

Asking what your opponent's evidence is does not win you any favors with me. Unless you have a good reason, something you haven't heard before, questioning the source, evidence violations, I find it detracts from the real value of this activity. Please don't do this unless it is integral to advancing your arguments. To be clear, I totally respect and endorse asking to see your opponent's evidence IF necessary. I do not favor or ever vote for arguments based on "my opponent doesn't have evidence" when my flow shows otherwise.

I like impacts. I like links.

You should articulate your arguments clearly because even if I know the content and literature, I will not do the work of filling in the gaps for you.

I prefer students advance arguments. Arguments can and should evolve.

Please tell me what I should write on my ballot. Good chance if you do, I will write it.

Don't yell at me please. I am a person. Ask yourself, would like me to yell at you for 45 minutes? No, you do not. Make a different choice. I will verbally tell you to knock it off.

I call evidence. Please have evidence in round according to the rules. There is a good chance, especially in D1, I am calling it. It doesn't mean you did something wrong, it most likely means there is something I want to confirm. This specifically comes up when you are paraphrasing your evidence, and your paraphrasing changes to the point it doesn't reflect the initial read. I am just trying to be a good judge for you.

PF debate

I am pretty traditional in my sense of what PF should be and look like. I believe in the concept a lay judge should be able to judge the round.

Just because the summary is 3 minutes, doesn't mean it is a 2nd rebuttal. A summary during that time would be cool.

I vote on offense.

LD debate

I strongly advise carrying your framework with you through the round. It weighs heavily for me in voting. Framework is one of the strongest voting areas for me in LD. If you lose it, I am not sure how you win the ballot. I literally vote on values.

Criterion clash isn't a "thing". Stop trying to make criterion clash happen. You clash values, you argue criterions.

I am well read on popular philosophies used in more traditional circuits of LD debate. I prefer phil. heavy rounds.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

Pronouns: He, Him

Experience: 11-year coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in LD, PF, BQ, and WSD, but minimal experience in CX.

Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments. If I didn't hear it, it can't end up on my flow. You may also want to speak up a tiny bit (especially if masked), as I'm slightly hard-of-hearing.

Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.

The only time my preconceptions will come into play is with topicality/resolution analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.

Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. If you're not clashing on interpretation, don't worry about it. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.

Cross: For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.

Things I like:

- Clear and consistent signposting

- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate

- Clear impacts that stem from Claim-Data-Warrant structures.

- Kritiks/Theory - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear. However, I come from and coach in a very traditional district, so I don't have much experience with judging these types of arguments. Give your best "...for Dummies" version of your kritik if you do go for one.

-Volume. I'm alitttttlehard of hearing, so I appreciate projection.

Things I DO NOT like:

• "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Then never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
• Evidence battles over arbitrary things ("my card is 2020 when theirs is 2017!"). There's a time/place for calling evidence into question, but I need a clear reason why something like a year matters for a particular stat (like, a recently implemented policyshould probably have the most up-to-date info, but I don't need anup-to-the-secondarticle on something John Locke believed back in the primordial ooze).

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

Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round as long as we're not running behind.

-Christian Novak