Fetzik,+Steven


 * Note: much of this philosophy similar to the paradigm of DJ Brynteson, debate coach at Robbinsdale Cooper HS, MN, because In fact, parts have been copied verbatim because we both agree with each other. If you like DJ, you'll like me, too. Steven J. Fetzik**
 * Background:** I have 25+ years of coaching experience. I coached previously at West Fargo, ND; Austin, MN, and currently coach at St. Francis High School. I have been a successful LD coach over my tenure, inculuding a MN State Champion in 2001 and several debaters reaching elimination rounds at NFL's.

Debate the topic, defend your side and provide some offense why I should vote for you.
 * Decision Making Process:** I classify myself as more of a traditional LD judge. The question I use when making my decision is: On balance, which side persuaded me that the resolution is true or false? I do not think that one or two examples prove or disprove a resolution, and this "on balance" approach applies equally to both sides of the debate. I also believe that the value and criterion are essential parts in debating a topic, and I expect that both of these areas are fully developed within the round. Everything should apply back to the value & criterion/standard. I generally do not buy into theory, kritiks, etc. and do not see these types of arguments supporting my "on balance" approach to debate. Debate the resolution, please, and don't play games.


 * Speed:** I'm not a huge fan of it, but that doesn't mean that I won't allow a little bit of it. I do not think that more speed = more education. In fact, I think the opposite. Debate is--at its core--a persuasive activity that includes all of the elements of persuasion and puvblic speaking. Spread at your own risk: if I can't flow it, it isn't an argument in the round. The 1AR would be wise to group arguments under a common theme and deal with them that way, rather than trying to do a point-by-point.
 * Points:** My scale is anywhere from a 20 to 30, with my verage around 28. If you want a 30 you should be reading evidence (in the 2 also - extension not new). Be clear, understandable and smart. Voters on the flow are fine but you should still have some sort of conclusion/summary to wow me at the end of the speech. IA thirty is tough to get; I tend to be more conservative on points at tournaments where the quality of competition is high (sections, state, TOC tournaments).

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask me at the start of the round.