I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend and uphold your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

I am a former LD Debater, State Champion and National Competitor many moons ago.

I have coached and judged Public Forum and LD for the past 8 years. The last seven as Head Coach.

I am a flow judge. Speed is fine but know if it doesn’t hit my flow it didn’t happen. I will be pretty clear in my face and writing if you are losing me.

Overview: I will not do the work for you.

I require extending arguments and vetting sources. IE remember the XX card (I won’t) with out a paraphrase and impact is meaningless and a throw away.

Signpost. If you must jump around the flow, lead me there. I require more than cross apply the arguments. Why?

Narrative: This is an absolute requirement for me. Why do I prefer your offering on the resolution? I do not vote on net zero arguments. IE my evidence is better, more recent, yada yada without context. Making an argument neutral is not winning an argument. Basically, impact the TURN. I am not a technicality judge as I do not feel that is in the true spirit of Debate.

Public Forum:

I do not believe there is a paradigm in this area of debate. I expect logical links and impacts. I am open to where a debater will take the argument. That said, public forum is not Policy light. Use solvency, plans, counter plans, K’s and DisAds at your own risk. There is a reason Policy rounds are 90 minutes and PF only 45. If you can solve for poverty in 4 minutes from a few sentences of some evidence, I will personally take you to the U.N.

I do embrace/expect scope and link chains as it is logical and necessary to weigh any debate.

LD:

I will look to Framework. If you can not access impacts in the V/C clash I cannot vote for you. End of story. You cannot win an LD round with out winning the V/C clash. It is the bedrock of why we are even talking about the subject in LD and not PF or Policy. You have a unique obligation of ought or should while upholding a link to the real world.

I've been around the debate world for about 20 years, competing, coaching and judging, middle school, high school, and college tournaments. I have seen everything and can accommodate your style accordingly. My paradigm is pretty simple: have proper decorum to be respectful of everyone in the room.

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

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.