Schauer,+Courtney

Coach (College): Augsburg College (MN) Coach (High School): Highland Park Senior High (MN)

 The moniker similar judges might insert here to describe my over-arching debate philosophy is: “debate is a game.” However, that statement can be, at once, too loaded and too empty for my liking. I strive above all else to maintain objectivity. I like to see good debating: debaters employing strategies and deploying arguments that motivate and interest them, and doing it well.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. As a former coach once told me, “You have to win an argument – before you get caught up in anything else, you have to present the judge an argument that wins you the debate.” More and more I am judging debates in which students are losing sight of this. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while providing strategic vision and closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X. Cross-examination used to be my favorite component of any given debate round. Now, I usually find myself counting down the seconds until it’s over. Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all answers, concessions, etc. for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad- homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc. which can all be applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.