Martinet,+Tony

Martinet, Tony Debate Coach Sioux Falls Lincoln HS, SD

__Updated 11/3/17__

I am the head debate coach at Sioux Falls Lincoln High School. An overall paradigm for any type of debate I judge: I only evaluate what is articulated in the round. How you explain and develop the arguments as the round progress is how I will evaluate them. If your evidence has some great warrant that counters your opponent's argument, then you better explain that in the round. I do not give much weight to embedded clash - you should be making this explicit.

__**Policy Paradigm**__ I approach the round as a policymaker. I am open to most arguments as long as you tell me how they function in the round. The 2NR and 2AR should help me write my ballot. Give me impact calculus and weigh arguments for me.

Argumentation - Extension of a tag is not necessarily an extension of an argument. I want explicit warrants and analysis. You should be telling me why to prefer your argument/evidence over your opponents. I am not a fan of having to call for evidence because you are supposed to be doing the debating, not me.

Theory - I am not a fan of running theory just for the sake of running an argument. There should be some clear abuse or violation as to why you are running theory. Theory arguments are meta-debates and should be clearly treated as such; Arguments should have clear links and impacts.

Kritiks - I have a background in communication theory. So if you are trying to argue that the discourse represented by my ballot decision matters, then I need to understand the clear implications of how me circling a decision on a piece of paper has any impacts beyond the round. Be sure you help me understand the actual role of the ballot and the role of other people in the room have to your overall advocacy. I put a lot of pressure on the K to truly prove how they impact beyond the round. Debate on face is a process of hypotheticals because Congress will not actually do the plan. So if you are going to tell me that the K matters because it has real-world implications, you better be able to prove it.

//SPEED// - I should be blunt and just say I do not like speed. With the introduction of computers, many debaters have abandoned even the façade of clarity in their speaking. Debaters seem to forget that I do not have the case in front of me as they are reading. So I cannot read as you are speaking, which means I cannot understand the arguments at the speed you are presenting them. Without times of clear and slowed down explanation, I am not sure how I am expected to consider the arguments. If you are going to speed, you better have a plan for when you will slow down the explanation. Cross-x is a pretty good time for this. I do not yell clear. At some point, you should look up to see if I am flowing. If I cannot process what you are saying then I may have to put my own interpretation onto the evidence. I do not like doing this, so if I can vote somewhere else on the flow, I will and you may not be happy with my interpretation versus yours.

Speaking and presentation - If you care at all about your speaker points, then you will not speed read by sacrificing clarity, you will not do tag-team cross-x except minimally to clarify, and you will not be shouting out to your partner through their whole speech (A few indications that they should move on from an argument are ok.) For me, speaker points are given based on your speaking style and ability, not your ability to parrot your partner. I only flow what is said by the person who is supposed to be giving the speech. Part of your speaker points also reflects your strategy in the round. If you are not making strategic choices, then you are not a strong speaker. Don't read 5 more impact scenarios, when all they have done is attacked the link level of the debates. Make sure you are reading the right type fo theory for the arguments in the round.


 * __LD Paradigm__**
 * //Understand that the following are my preferences, at the same time I am willing to admit that I do come from a more traditional style circuit. So I will always evaluate the round in front of me. I will not do work for the debaters. Where ever I can vote with the least amount of intervention is where I will make my decision.//**
 * Argumentation �** You need to explain your arguments to me and how they interact with the rest of the round. Just because you extend something does not mean you win the round. All it means is I have a nice line across my paper, you must tell me why that matters. I will take clearly extended warrants where the debate is happening versus a blippy �extend A it was dropped� with no analysis at all.

__(FOR BLAKE TOURNAMENT) �__ //I am not a fan of theory as a way to get an easy win on the new topic. Everyone has had the same limited prep with it, so do not try to use some small interpretation of the resolution to try and claim abuse on your opponent's case. If the interpretation under question has some sort of logical connection then I will accept it. On the flip-side, if you have some really hyper-specific interpretation of one word, so you are therefore claiming you can create one small scenario in which to affirm or negate, also not going to be too happy and then the theory will become easier to win.// //SPEED �// Most debaters have become very adept at speaking clearly and quickly, unfortunately, while I may be able to hear every word you say, I cannot usually process them. At some point, if there are warrants I need to evaluate or arguments that are so important you want me to vote on them, they need to be explained just a little slower then you read your case. Cross-x is usually a great time to get this done, so at least slow down there to explain yourself. I do not yell clear. At some point, you should look up to see if I am flowing. If I cannot process what you are saying then I may have to put my own interpretation onto the evidence. I do not like doing this so if I can vote somewhere else on the flow I will or you may not be happy with my interpretation versus yours.
 * Framework -** I realize that there are times when I just have to judge the round in front of me. I have a preference for Value/Criterion structure, but if you run a different framework choice, there needs to be a clear explanation and warrant to the new framework. In the end, this will guide how I evaluate the rest of the round. Arguments need to be connected back to the F/W. If an argument does not really fit or work within the winning F/W, then it is not really evaluated in the round unless you tell me why it still functions.
 * Value Debate -** I am not a fan of the trend to ignore the value debate and pretend it does not matter. I think a good solid value with justifications for the value can be very strategic in a round. I want to hear some warrant for your value choice beyond simple, "Resolution says moral so Value is Morality or Resolution says (any derivative of justice) so value is Justice.� Also I have a hard time with Morality as a value. This requires that we assume we know what is good and moral, which is the whole point of the debate. What all this means is that I will prefer values that are clearly linked to the resolution beyond simple word similarities and also values that actually help us weigh what is good or bad.
 * Theory/ A priori �** Do not avoid debate and clash. I am not the biggest fan of theory or A priori's because they are usually just attempting to avoid clashing with your opponent. With theory, you must show some abuse on the flow. I have a high threshold for both of these arguments, which means if you want me to vote on it, you better devote some time to it. Do not just extend it, spend 30 sec on why you win, and then expect me to vote.
 * Delivery style �** I still believe in this activity as a communication-based activity. Not treating it as such will impact your speaker points. I would like you to stand, be respectful, and be intelligent. The only time your style will impact the actual decision is with speed.