Eastlund,+Loren

Loren Eastlund LD Coach Emeritus, Highland Park MN My background: I debated LD for four years at Highland Park Senior High in St. Paul, MN. I was a primarily national circuit debater for most of that time. Since graduating in 2005 I spent two years coaching LD, and since then I have been judging somewhat consistently since then. For the last several years however, it's been down to 1-2 tournaments per year.

To win my ballot, advance arguments that get you offense and link to some kind of standard. I try not to intervene in the round; I'm open to most arguments except ones that are patently offensive. I believe arguments need to be extended in rebuttal in order to have weight at the end of the round, so don't spend your entire rebuttal playing defense.

I haven't coached in a long time, and was never a big fan of philosophy, so if you want to tailor your case/round to me, go for more straight forward, ends based impacts. I will certainly listen to and do my best to engage in your case no matter what you run, but I have never excelled at learning a new philosophical theory within the confines of a debate round, and I don't have any compunctions with not voting for a case that I just do not understand. If you want to go for a unique philosophy or something from the post-modern/critical field, you will need to slow down to an almost conversational speed.

Please note: I really dislike how much theory has come to dominate this activity at the higher levels. This is not to say that I dislike theory in itself, because I ran it a good amount when I debated. However, when I see a round in which neither case is ever addressed because both debaters spend all of their rebuttal time on theory, it makes me die a little inside. I do recognize that theory args are sometime necessary because it would be prohibitively difficult to debate the round under a framework or interpretation which disproportionately benefits your opponent. In that regard, I will still listen to theory but you should keep in mind two things: 1. I have a high threshold for abuse before I vote on theory. You will need to demonstrate that the round would be extraordinarily difficult (not just inconvenient) to win under your opponents interpretation. 2. If the round does devolve into nothing but theory on both sides, I will probably just vote for the debater I think is being // less // abusive, so it's probably in your best interest to not abandon the case debate.

Some stylistic points, in case you haven't already added me to your strike list:
 * I can handle some speed, but certainly not the fastest rounds anymore. Additionally, it's not the most enjoyable thing to try to absorb and evaluate the round when you can only understand half of it. If you stick to maybe 90% of your top speed, we'll probably both be happier. I will say clear twice during a round, after which you will need to look up occasionally to see if I'm flowing.
 * I prefer rounds with lots of responses to each case. If you can make ~20 good arguments against an AC (10 against an NC) with a card or two thrown in for good measure, you'll be well on your way to earning a 30.
 * The amount of weight your argument carries in my decision is proportional to the amount of time you spend making and developing your argument. In this sense, a dropped blip response will carry less weight than a well developed and nuanced argument which is contended by your opponent.
 * My evaluation of speaker points is weighted more toward strategy than presentation, but things along the lines of the following will cost you points: stamping your feet, long pauses, rocking back and forth like a heroin junkie in withdrawal, gasping excessively, screaming at the top of your lungs, etc. Hopefully you get the idea.

2017 Update: I haven't updated this since 2013, but it remains correct for the most part. If anything, I would emphasize how long it's been since debate was my job or a huge part of my time. I'm not a coach, or a teacher, or an academic, I'm a risk analyst for an insurance company. You should probably slow down, and if you want to run Derrida/Levinas/Zizek/Foucault/whathaveyou, you will need to be good at explaining it and don't just throw out buzzwords and assume I understand what they mean and how they interact.