I'm Mark. I've been coaching debate for about 10 years and was a competitor in high school and college. Prior to starting at Carolina Day, I worked with the University of Kansas' policy program. I see myself as a facilitator, seeking to provide and enhance the competitive/educational experience competitors want to have. Debates are best when they are specific, researched, civil, and relevant to the lived experiences of the participants. Debates are worst when they are exclusionary, non-communicative, unwelcoming, or hostile.

I'm actively involved in research and preparation for my own teams, so the literature base surrounding each topic is fairly familiar to me. Technical, field-specific jargon is not a problem for me. Where I struggle is when debaters assume the meaning of debate-centered god terms. Frequently, when debaters think they win and they lose, it's because they assume the meaning of some term is universal when it is not a language the judge shares. If you believe something is important, explain its importance in terms of the ballot.

I don't care about speed, but ask you respect your opponents' requests to become more clear. You should also be willing to provide your opponent with a written or digital copy of what you have read. If I can't follow you, I'll say something, but that hasn't happened yet.

I used to go through lists of issues in my paradigms and pontificate on their importance. I have learned that debaters prefer to make certain kinds of arguments certain kinds of ways, and it's my job to follow them through their logic as best I can. Here is what I propose: make a genuine attempt to communicate, and I will make a genuine attempt to listen charitably.

Respect each other, respect yourselves, and have fun playing games with words. It's best for us all if you do.