Hertzig,+Chetan


 * __EXPERIENCE__: ** I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York, and have previously been a coach at Sacred Heart and Lexington (both in Massachusetts), as well as at Scarsdale High School in New York. I debated for Lexington from 1994 to 1998. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.

If you're in high school, please address me by my last name (no "Mr." is required).


 * __PRACTICES I WILL REWARD WITH HIGHER SPEAKS__:**

- Starting speeches slowly and building speed as you go (rather than starting at top speed) - ENUNCIATING and INFLECTING - Speaking slower than average circuit speed - Providing an explicit decision-calculus/voting issues - Explicitly linking to a standard or ROB in speeches, especially rebuttals - Telling a clear and coherent ballot story - Reading a whole res aff that defends the topic as a principle - Having a layered NC and responsive/specific turns off the aff - Making topical critical arguments/reading Ks that are grounded in the topic lit - Comparing evidence and weighing - Giving __structured__ speeches - Using good word economy
 * - Weighing between your extensions and your opponent's ** (not just giving me two non-clashing sets of extensions)

__**PRACTICES FOR WHICH I WILL DECREASE SPEAKS**__**:**

- Using profanity in the round. I don't care what your purpose is; it's not necessary. - Using ad homs of any kind against your opponent (e.g., commenting on their race, clothing, or practices as a debater). Find a non-personal way of making the argument. - Reacting non-verbally when your opponent is speaking (e.g., violently shaking your head, making faces, waving your arms). It's rude, unpersuasive, and unnecessary. - Indicting or insulting an opponent's team or coach in round (e.g., "It's no surprise [team name] is going for T this round") - Referring to yourself in the plural (e.g., "we" and "our") - Referring to your opponent as "you" - talk to me, not them (you can refer to your opponent as "they"/"them" or whatever their preferred gender pronoun is) - Sitting during CX and/or speeches unless you're physically unable to stand


 * __GENERAL__:** For the most part, I want to see a substantive round **about the topic**. My conception of what counts as topical argumentation is based on what's in the topic literature.

__** *PLEASE READ: If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it. **__ There might be ink on the flow that you're extending, but if you don't do the work of telling me what it means/how it interacts with what your opponent's going for, I'm not going to know what to do with it.


 * __Speed__:** Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I find it interesting that people often ask if I'll say "slow" or "clear," and then proceed to not change their delivery after I do. Here's the deal: **__ I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. __**


 * __ *PLEASE READ: I would like debaters to allow their opponents to slow or clear them if necessary. __** I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.


 * __Theory__:** **__I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow.__ I will intervene against theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on theory.** I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me.


 * __Framework__:** If you and your opponent agree on a FW, great. If not, make the FW debate relatively short (i.e., not 4 minutes of a 7 minute speech). Also, **please explain the philosophical concepts you're using instead of assuming that I know them. I probably don't.**


 * __Policy Arguments__:** **__ I dislike generic politics DAs and extinction impacts on topics that clearly don't link to them. __** If you want to run those impacts on a topic about nuclear weapons, go for it. If the topic's about compulsory voting, it's going to take a lot to get me to believe your story. I won't vote for extinction based on a "risk of offense" if your opponent has made excellent defensive answers that demonstrate that your impacts won't happen. I think that lets debaters running terrible arguments get away with not actually debating.


 * __Bostrom__:** Nope. I will only vote on/for Bostrom if I see absolutely no other way out. Sorry.


 * __Ks and Micropolitical Arguments__:** __ **I** **generally prefer TOPICAL critical arguments.** __ I encourage you to talk about issues of race, gender, class, representation, etc., but __do so within the confines of the resolution__, not in some external method I don't have jurisdiction to evaluate. I prefer Ks with tangible alts (although I'm more okay with reps Ks now than I used to be).


 * __Disclosure Theory__:** Ugh, spare me. I think plans and specific affs should be disclosed, but I don't really like disclosure theory rounds. I'll vote for this if I think it's won on the flow, but I'm not a huge fan of rounds that come down to this.


 * __Tricks__:** Shut the front door! Who are you?! (In other words, "no.")


 * __Extensions__: __ I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an exte ____ nsion. __ Don't just extend names and claims.**


 * __"Flex Prep"__:** Different people use these words to mean different things. I am fine with you asking clarification questions of your opponent during prep time. I am not okay with you ending CX early and taking the rest of the time as prep time.


 * __Other Stuff__:** Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. __** Give me vo **** ting **__** __issues__. **WEIGH. Be nice. And stand up.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit [|Life coach].