Schebel,+Rob

I am currently the Public Forum coach at West Des Moines Valley High School, and have coached and judged PF on both the local and national circuits for three years. I teach English, and have degrees in both Philosophy and English.

I am not an experienced LD judge. Therefore, I prefer slightly slower speaking speeds and as much signposting as possible to keep an ordered flow. Because I regard this as my limitation as a judge, if you are reading too quickly, I will ask you to slow down without deducting speaks. If I have to ask you more than once, that's a problem for you.

I am a flow judge. Dropped arguments weigh into my decision-making calculus. I believe strongly in the full development of claim-warrant-impact for all argumentation, and prefer that all three elements be made explicit in-round. Analytical claims should be clearly articulated, and empirical claims should be well-substantiated with evidence. I don't mind some theory, but I do mind if you quote a philosopher out of context. If you want to use Heidegger or Baudrillard or Nietzche, you'd better have at least a rudimentary understanding of what these thinkers are saying in the larger context. If I detect that you're quoting out of context, I'll cross your argument out of the flow.

Right now, I prefer traditional LD debate. I expect strongly-reasoned and well-substantiated claims on-topic. As I gain more experience, I'm sure I'll recognize the validity of more non-traditional approaches, but you'd be rolling the dice if you take a non-traditional tack with me in 2010.