Last changed on
Thu December 8, 2022 at 2:34 PM CDT
I coach speech and debate at Eagan High School and am the librarian/media specialist there.
I enjoy debate, so I look forward to hearing your round!
In general you may want to know this about me: I want to hear you debate about the resolution/legislation at hand. Theory is very rarely needed. I like to hear real world impacts, and I want to understand how your arguments will impact the lives of people. I have little interest in unique/trick/squirrel/non-topical arguments. Weighing is important...so give me a clear way to weigh a round. Delivery is important, so speak well and avoid speed at all costs. Speaking of speaking, there have been five times when I've given a 30 in my life, and the lowest end I've given was 10. In all situations the speaker points were earned. My typical range is 26-29. I rarely disclose and there will be no orals after the round. Finally and most importantly, have fun and debate with class.
Specifically, in terms of congressional debate: I'm probably going to vote for the best legislator. You should speak well...but not have canned speeches. You should show me you can speak in a variety of positions (author legislation, introduce arguments, refute arguments, and weigh/crystalize the round). You should advance your arguments through questions. You should use motions to advance/end debate when appropriate. You should play the role of a congressperson with the decorum it deserves. You are always on...even during recess. You should be a good person (don't be a jerk).
In terms of public forum: I'm probably going to vote for the team that does the best job of explaining the big picture of what happens in the pro and/or con world. Real world impacts are important. Weighing is important.
In terms of LD: I'm old school. I would gladly judge a value debate. I would gladly judge a round in which the criterions are debated.
In terms of policy: Good luck. Use everything written here to adapt your approach to me. I might not be the best judge for your typical approach. I do not want to have to vote on presumption.
Last changed on
Thu June 18, 2020 at 5:49 AM EDT
Todd Hering-PF Paradigm
I have coached debate since 1991 in a variety of formats.
Evidence ethics are important to me. Debaters should accurately represent the conclusions of credible authors. I do not support paraphrasing, but if you do, it needs to strictly conform to the original source.
I prefer fewer arguments that are well-developed with clear warranting. “Blippy” debate—many claims with limited explanation—is ineffective and unpleasant. I am unlikely to vote for an argument that isn’t developed over the course of the round.
Stylistically, I do not enjoy fast debate. In my ideal world, debate would develop and reward communication skills that are relevant beyond the world of competitive debate. I do understand that there are some competitive realities with time limits that force debaters sometimes to speak quickly. Also, being polite in cross-fire is expected.