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 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

FLOWING:

I flow the entire round in the RFD so that teams and coaches can see how the round went. I also add my thoughts in italics, so that you can see how different arguments went. I'll put my biggest RFD (and the value clash) at the top of my notes.

DECISION:

1 - I sometimes find that debaters say something brilliant but quick in a round and never touch on it again. These little moments can and do swing close rounds. For this reason, it is important to balance both offense and defense and listen carefully all through the round.

2 - Debaters should carefully consider what evidence they use. Try to present ample, credible, and unbiased sources. Logic can only take you so far on its own. Evidence can only do so much on its own. The two need to balance.

3 - Impacts really matter. If one side is better able to explain their impacts and prove that they weigh more heavily than the opposition's, that side may take the lead.

PREFERENCES:

1 - Please do not spread. Spreading isn't good for anyone. I understand that students do it to fit as much information in as possible, but you risk opponents and judges not being able to track everything you say. Spreading could very easily backfire when judges and competitors are not able to take notes fast enough retain everything you say, anyway. You might as well reduce your argument so that everyone can track the whole thing and you can take more time to focus on the impacts. A good argument will be about argument quality, not necessarily quantity.

2 - I recognize that I do have a bias against disrespectful debaters. It is very important to me that debaters maintain their composure and professionalism through the entire round. Competitors are future leaders and need to be able to set a good example for those around them. It would have to be extreme for me to actively and intentionally weigh that in the round, but I recognize that my biases make it difficult to NOT let rude behavior get to me. Basically, remain poised and professional.

3 - Meld values into your contentions and come back to that! Please balance the value clash with the contentions. I'll use the wining value to weigh both teams' contentions, so it is possible to win the value clash but then have your opponents uphold that value better with their arguments. You need to be ready to explain not only why your value is superior, but how you uphold it better.