Debate should be an educational and communicative activity. I look for debaters that can discuss the topic with intelligence and honesty. Any attempts to play games with my emotions or my sentiments will get very low marks on the ballot. Debate the topic and do so with integrity, this is my expectation.

Brian Geffre

Shanley High School

Fargo ND

I come from 5 years of experience in Public Forum.

How to win me over...

1. Extend arguments and weigh impacts.

2. As long as your speaking is clear I am alright with speed, if I can't understand you then you are going too fast.

3. SIGNPOST

4. Clearly state impacts and warrants.

5. Be calm and polite. I am far less likely to vote for you if you are rude.

6. Be productive in crossfire (ask questions). It is not a time for you to allow your opponents to reread their case, to bully your opponent, be a savage, or roast people.

7. Provide credible evidence. I am more willing to take the card with the more reliable author when they conflict.

8. Respect the timer. I will stop flowing when time has expired.

9. Call cards on your own prep time.

10. Grand cross is useless, change my mind.

10. Do summary speeches right, they are not a second rebuttal, they are there to narrow the debate and set up your partner for final focus.

11. I am a fan of new and unique arguments/twists. I don't want to hear the same points over and over again.

NOTE - I will not flow crossfire. If something is important enough to be on my flow, it should be in a speech. You may reference crossfire, but the point should be made in a speech.

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, His

Past Experience: I debated Public Forum for 5 years.

--PF--

I am pretty strictly a flow judge. If you expect to win an argument on the flow it must be cleanly extended throughout the round. If its not said in a speech didn't write it down. Rounds for me are won through offense. You have to give me a reason to vote for you rather than giving reasons to not vote for your opponent. I want you to literally spell it out for me why you won by the end. I absolutely HATE having to rely on my own defaults to decide a round.

I really don't care a whole lot what kinds of arguments you wanna run as long as they are not a plan or counterplan. Theory, Kritiks, etc. are cool, fun, and educational. They shouldn't be excluded from this event but they also need to be better tailored to the format. That means if your running an obscure kritik you need to be able and ready to spend 4 minutes clearly explaining your argument. You may not have time for other offense in the constructive. That's the tradeoff and strategy discussion that will happen with your partner and coach. I don't care what you go for so long as I can understand, and flow it.

If you have me as your judge, please understand that you likely will not change my opinions on things. That is ok. Do not worry about my personal opinions. Your job in the round, if I am your judge, is not necessarily to convince me that your position is correct but rather it is to convince me why you have won the debate. I will vote against my own personal beliefs if I believe that that side won the debate based off of my flow unless it is particularly egregious (e.g. racism, transphobia, bigotry, etc.).

That being said do not be racist, transphobic, etc. You will lose. If you are intentionally and consistently being problematic I will stop the round and report the incident to the tournament organizer. Also, do not frivolously claim your opponents are being bigoted. I take these things seriously and do not appreciate such disingenuous rhetorical jabs. If you believe that your opponent's argument or your opponents themselves are genuinely bigoted, then call that out appropriately. If you are unsure how to do so, talk to your coach.

--LD--

*working on it dawg just ask me, but most of the PF stuff is applicable

--CX--

*working on it dawg just ask me, but most of the PF stuff is applicable

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

Background:

• I teach English 11, Journalism, and College Writing at Moorhead High School. This is my 10th year at MHS.
• I have coached speech for the past 10 seasons, primarily PA events (Discussion, Ex. Speaking, GS, Info, OO).
• I have been the Head Debate Coach at MHS since 2017 when we revived the program. Over the past seven years, I have coached PF and Congress. Our team also competes in LD.
• I regularly judge PF and Congress during the regular season and have judged Congress and PF at State for the past four years. I've also judged PF at national circuit tournaments and NSDA Nationals. In speech, I've judged all events at the local, regional, and national level since 2015.

A more detailed paradigm is below but, regardless of the event, please know that respect, integrity, and decorum are paramount. Offensive language, condescension, and aggression at any point in the round will ensure a loss/lowest possible rank. In short, be kind.

Public Forum:

• Speed is fine so long as it doesn't come at the cost of clarity. Quality over quantity usually prevails. Clear signposting and extending voters goes a long way toward winning the round. Take the time to ensure that 'dropped' contentions are fully explained.
• Please do not bombard us with cards. Evidence (directly and appropriately quoted) is important but I am far more interested in your analysis and deeper explanation. Demonstrate your understanding and show us how that evidence functions with regard to your opponent's claims and the case you are building.
• Stay cool and composed, especially during cross. Shouting matches serve little purpose. When you ask a question, I expect that you actually want to hear the answer.
• Timing - While I expect debaters to honor time restrictions and keep record, I will also keep track and will hold you to those parameters. Please don't abuse it.

Congress:

• Much like PF, it's quality over quantity for me. Two, or maybe three, sub points defending or negating a piece of legislation with sound, clear analysis is more important than a lengthy list of reasons with little time to explain. Long intros that meander before reaching the thesis, to me, are not the best use of time (I know, I sound like a curmudgeon. Have fun with it but not at the expense of dropping or rushing a point previewed in the intro).
• Demonstrate your understanding of the bill/resolution and its language. Reference specifics within the legislation (section and/or line numbers are helpful). I think it can be easy to find small, grammatical or typographical errors and point solely to that as a reason for negating (and in some cases, those issues should be noted), but please take the time to debate the merits of the legislation as well.
• Active listening - Above all, this one stands out to me the most and usually becomes my tiebreaker when ranks are super close. This can be as small as directly referencing -- by name -- previous speakers and their points or even making occasional eye contact while others are speaking . . . Active listening also means building upon established claims/reasons in your speeches and in questioning. If there's nothing new or insightful to add, it's best to move to previous Q to retain your spot in line. On a related note, please make an effort to correctly pronounce the names of your fellow competitors (and if yours is mispronounced, please correct them...and correct me too).
• POs - I tend to start POs in the top 5-6 of my rankings and adjust based on the overall organization, order, and smoothness of the round. I try to track P/R when scoring and definitely do as a Parli. Small errors can be forgiven (we're all human) if recognized but, especially late in the season, running for PO tells me that you are comfortable with the job. As such, I will hold POs to that standard much like the standards set for Reps/Sens in the round.