Martin,+Heath

Director of Debate at Cypress Woods HS in Houston. My paradigm is better explained if you know my history in debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then debated for a top ten CEDA program in college and joined the ranks of policy debaters. I started coaching about ten years ago and have had mostly LD debaters and now LD/PF debaters. When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am not a huge fan of some microdebate on theory. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I can not keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally corrupt. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.