Senn,+Flip

Flip Senn Head Coach Poudre High School, Fort Collins, Colorado

I debated in high school for four years, and have been coaching for two. I coach mainly LD debate, though I also coach policy and public forum when occasion arises. I will listen to almost all arguments, so bring the creative stuff. The generics bore me, but if you want to run them and run them well, you can still take the round.

LD: -VALUE AND CRITERION: I am willing to take all arguments, including the more "K-ish" cases. That being said, you still need a core value and criterion The most important things for me are, core value, criterion, and key arguments in that order. It will be hard to win a round if you drop your value or criterion, but with that said, I truly despise the generic "You need life to have freedom," or "Life is pointless without freedom," value arguments. Your core value should have specific significance related to your case, and you should be able to critically analyze why it is important to the round and the resolution. Your criterion and value should be presented throughout your arguments, and then adapted to your opponents case.

-KEY POINTS AND FLOW: I will flow your entire case, and I am generally fine with whatever speed you want to use. I think a good debater will know the important points of a case, and will emphasize them both in their argument and in the way they present it. If you are delivering a key line, maybe slow down and emphasize it. I want roadmaps and signposts throughout, and organization is key, as I am keeping track of all points as well. Key arguments should change through the round. I should not be hearing the exact same reasoning in the rebuttal speeches I heard in the constructive. They should change and address your opponent, and your core value and criterion. If you use the same argument, my flow will go nowhere. The most important thing for me in the entire round is that you are thinking critically about the arguments, and you are adapting and debating them intelligently. Simply reading a card does not show me this, nor does rereading your first speech. Synthesize ideas in the round and tie them back to your case in a relevant and logical manner and I will be impressed.

-THEORY VS EVIDENCE: I will say I am personally a fan of theory and philosophy over evidence debate. I think an LD round is no place to be arguing recency on opposing cards. Here again I will stress the importance of analysis. The debater who uses the card to build an argument will win against an opponent who is simply reading it without knowing what it means. Philosophy will hold up against pure evidence, but it is much harder to run effectively, so know your stuff. (These are also not mutually exclusive).

-PRESENTATION AND ETHICS: Polite debate is something that should be expected. If you are rude in round, the ballot will show it. As far as presentation goes, I think it is important to LD debate. You can speed all you want, but generally you can say everything you need to while still sounding persuasive. I like hearing the passionate speeches with different emphasis and inflections, but make sure you are covering your flow first.

POLICY: I would say I am closest to a tabula rasa judge. If you make an argument, I will listen to it. That being said, I will also fall back to policy making if your arguments are weak. Stocks are not something I will directly vote on, but they are a judging paradigm for a reason, and shouldn't simply be thrown out the window. But yes, I aould say focus on tab or policy making. I like the interesting arguments, and am fine hearing counter plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. The most important thing is to run the round well.

I am fine with speed, but as the round goes on and I find out you don't understand what it is you're saying, you will lose points. I like seeing teams that can come back in rebuttals and build and adapt their arguments (see above in LD), so the round has dynamic clash, as opposed to two teams sitting in a room who happen to both be reading their arguments out loud at the same time. Clash. Please.

Again, speed is fine, but you NEED to road map, and //slow down// for your sign post. I want those to be clear as day when you change arguments. I will be flowing the entire round, so try to hit all the key points.

Generics are not something I am fond of at all. They are boring and while you can still win with them, the team that can adapt and critically analyze an argument will always do better. If you are going to rely on analytic, please know what you are saying. I am not a huge fan of theory, but if you want to run it, be prepared to do it well and explain your stances.

Clash should be easily apparent. In CX, I want to see you know what you are saying and what you may be conceding. Both partners MUST be the major player in their CX time. If one partner simply sits out for the entire debate, they will pull down the team.

Focus heavily on framework. As tab I am giving you more power than usual to show me what is important, but that part of policy maker in me will still want to pull you back if what you're saying is completely off topic.

Etiquette and manners are expected always.

Be smart, debate well, and think. Always the most important things to focus on.