Woodhead,+Mark


 * __Current Role:__ Head debate coach at Archbishop Mitty High School, in San Jose, CA. Member of CA Bar.
 * __Experience__: I am a former high school policy debater from James Logan in CA. 1A/ 2N. Dabbled in Parli @ UC Davis. Throughout college, and after graduation, I continued to coach policy debate for Logan during their summer academy and for a couple of academic years. After working briefly for a couple law firms I returned to coaching to help establish the program at Mitty.
 * __Logistics:__ Start round ASAP. Track your own prep. Time stops when doc sent/ flash is out. Include me in the chain- but I won't typically read evidence unless specifically called to do so and you at least made some attempts to explain the contents of the evidence and the significance of it. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the fire analysis of your card if you aren't extending/ explaining it.
 * __Judging Philosophy__: Open to most arguments. I would say that I default policymaker but am certainly open to critical arguments/ affirmatives. When attempting to change my default-paradigm, debaters must overcome my skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in their framework. I want to know what I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
 * Speed is fine, but slow on the tags, and introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if needed.
 * T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. If you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give a reason. I am not as well versed in the most recent K Affs or Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I would prefer T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types. I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on education and fairness implications of these alternative styles
 * I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision of which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
 * On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded).
 * I appreciate strategy, creativity and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 25-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

PF PARTICULARS:

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: **4** Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: **0** Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: **17** Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: **6** If you are a coach, what events do you coach? **Policy, PF, Parli, LD, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu** What is your current occupation? **Debate Coach**

Speed of Delivery: **moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 60-70% of full speed.** Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): **Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.** Role of the Final Focus: **Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.** Extension of Arguments into later speeches: **do it, please don't shadow extend //everything//** Topicality: **cool** Plans: **fine/ unless impossibly narrow** Kritiks: **if it links, sure** Flowing/note-taking: **Do it, I will.** Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? **Odd question, but arguments matter more. Also, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of** the the real **facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.** If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? **Typically, yes, especially in the summary.** Rebuttal **may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.** If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? **Opponents case only.** Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? **Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the** immidiately **prior speech/ grand-cross.** If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. **Be civil,** succint**, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).**