Type in the content of your page here.

1) coaching Middleton.
2) I have been college/HS coach every year since 1973. I was a scholarship debater in college for four years (qualified for NDT every year; won the college tournament of champions 1973 - polilcy debate). I have been a college Director of Forensics for 5 years and had teams qualify for nationals /NDT/CEDA 4 of those years. I was a HS coach in IL for 29 years - the last 24 at Evanstan HS. I have coached IL. State champions ,NFL national qualifiers in policy, LD, and Congressional debate. The last 6 years I have worked exclusively in LD.
3) I started HS debate in 1964 - and have debated or been a coach every year (except two) since that time.
4) Rate does not matter to me, as long as you can be clear and give organizational clues (signpost, number, etc).
5) I believe the LD format gives the negative unfair tactical advantages given the differences in speech times - given that I believe unanswered arguments are true and that there can be no new lines of argument initiated in the last speech. (New evidence every speech is good). I believe there ought to be a negatie presumption - and that the negative need not even present its own case. However, I believe such tactics must be explalined and defended successfully in each and every round. I believe the affirmative can interpret the resolution in any manner they can defend. I believe that it is clash and specific refutation that distinguishes debate from persuasion. I believe that the wording of the resolution is the only guide to and criterion for what is permitted in any given debate round. Theory is thus subject to debate in every round and there are no such things as universal rules other than the format specified on the invitation/ or organizational rules. I believe debate should encourage interesting/different approaches to resolutions and tactics/strategies. Thus, if the resolution dictates a policy debate in a LD round - I am open to that debate.
6) I am not against this approach, but think it often makes little sense in light of how resolutions are worded. If the value/criteria debate is essential, it is critical to have the criteria simply not be another value. The criteria should function to help me figure out if/and to what degree the value should be construed and successfully implemented. I actually believe that the criteria should function as a decision rule for the resolution. The best comparison is the criminal/civil law distinction: one requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the other just the preponderence of evidence. Certain value questions probably require different standards.
7) I will not impose my ideas/values/preferences unless the debaters drop/ignore so much that I have too.
8) Debaters should treat each other with respect; but I want positons advocated with urgency and defended with passion. There are never reasons to be abusive and/or dishonest.