Sexton,+Steve

I began coaching debate in 1980. I have coached policy, L-D and PF. I’ve been an NSDA member since high school and am currently a 2 diamond coach. I’m a retired social studies teacher (still coaching though) with 30+ years of debate and forensic experience.

In L-D, I'm a purist. I don't like cross over from other formats. (for example, I'm not looking for a plan or counter-plan in L-D) I expect a clearly defined value and criteria linked to that value. I expect to hear either why your value should be held above your opponent’s or why you can achieve it better than your opponent. Your contentions need to be linked and make sense to me. I value analysis not just statements. I like specific examples more than just theory. (Although I am not opposed to theory arguments.) It’s not my job to make the attack for you. If the evidence you read could match your tag, it would be of great benefit to you. Quantity doesn’t mean win. Quality of ideas is more important.

I like definitions that allow both sides to debate not leave one side stranded along the way. If you expect your opponent to do or not do something in a round, I expect you to be held to the same standard.

I believe that debaters ought to be polite to each other. I believe they need to listen to each other. If you have the bad habit of twisting your opponent’s words, you will probably not like the win/loss decision. Speed is your enemy. How can I judge the logic of your attack if I can’t understand the words you used. “Indistinguishable” words will not be found on my flow – they were never presented. Plus it takes the mind some time to process the content of what you are saying. Going too fast makes that impossible and I'm too lazy to make the argument for you.