Hahn,+Father+Raymond

Raymond Hahn

School: Cathedral Prep 30 years coaching LD; 35 years coaching Policy Debate Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm

Given my background in coaching, I am willing to listen to a wide variety of arguments. That being said, I have a preference for more traditional, rather than “progressive”, arguments. If you plan to use arguments more common in policy debate, be prepared to justify them in the debate. Critical arguments, counterplans, and topicality arguments need to be non-generic and debated as if you actually understand the arguments. I can be persuaded to vote on almost any argument if it is relevant to the opponent’s arguments and neither shallow nor tangentially related to the arguments in the debate and the resolution. I do care about the link and especially about the shape of the world that you want me to choose. If I cannot determine the reason(s) why you want me to choose the world of the criticism, then I won’t. I am not deterred by speed. I do expect the speaker to be clear and intelligible. I will say “clearer” to alert you to any difficulty I experience in your presentation. If you don’t adapt your speaking, then it won’t make my flow and later extensions of arguments or warrants in evidence I could not hear will not be very persuasive. I have high standards for courtesy and polite behavior in the round. I am very much put off by sarcasm, arrogance and inappropriate language. Avoid them or be shocked by your speaker points. In rebuttals, I am particularly interested in hearing how arguments are resolved. Comparison and weighing of positions against each other are very important to me. While I will vote on drops when I am told how they matter to the round, that is not my preference. Give me reasons to vote for you and explain why I should care about them.