Mensink,+Todd

2013-14

I am the head coach of the Champlin Park High School debate team (MN). I was a policy debater in high school back in the 80s, and returned to debate as an LD and PF coach 7 years ago.

When making a decision in LD, I first look to the **Value/Criterion/Standards** debate to decide the lens through which to make my decision. I enjoy standards debate as long as it is necessary, explained well, and related back to the resolution. If your standards are similar or work well together, I would prefer that you merge them and move on. I like for burdens to be established clearly and early. If the round is clearly contingent on your winning the standard battle, I am more than happy with you spending almost all of your time on it. You should always link your contention level arguments back to the standard if you want them to matter in my decision.

I believe that **the resolution** is there for a reason, and is worded the way it is for a reason, and thus I tend to prefer a straightforward interpretation of the resolution. You can run theory or a K that strays from a literal interpretation, but it has to be very well explained. I won't throw out an unchallenged observation because I think it is abusive, but will generally side with the debater who has the more precise and logical interpretation when it is challenged in the debate. I am generally not a fan of long theory shells, and feel that they should be used out of necessity, not out of choice. If your opponent is being abusive, you should be able to explain it in a fairly concise manner, and move on.

I place a huge emphasis on logical **argumentation**. I like it when you can point out logical fallacies in your opponents arguments. I am more easily swayed by arguments that are warranted with evidence than ones that aren't. I would prefer that you focus on a couple strong, well-developed arguments, than a laundry list of quick and poorly supported ones. I am fine with lumping arguments together to achieve this if it is appropriate. I like it when debaters can use analogies and examples to clarify their arguments. It helps me to understand your arguments, and lets me know that you also understand them.

You should avoid **speed** if it prevents you from speaking clearly or requires you to inhale at a greater volume than you speak. I can handle speed, and am OK with you using it if it's necessary (like in the 1AR after a super-fast NC), but wouldn't suggest you initiate it. It will hurt your speaker points and won't help you with the decision, as generally, the faster you are, the more liberal I will be with your opponent lumping arguments. If I can't keep up, I will not do your work for you and yell "clear". If you are reading so fast that you can't look up regularly to see if I am able to flow you, you're probably going too fast, and it will likely affect your speaker points.