Schaap.+Carl

Just as a disclaimer, it has been about five years since I have been actively involved in debate. Shortly after completing my BS in Political Science and Speech Communication, I started investing in real estate which took a bulk of my time. Since then I have been a managing partner at a start up furniture store and an admissions advisor at Kaplan University's online division. I am currently a graduate student at Kaplan University going for my MA in Project Management.

I have seen success both as a debater and as a coach. I competed in high school with Appleton West High School. On the collegiate level I was with the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. As a coach I have taught at Appleton North and Hortonville High Schools. I have judged extensively on the national circuit including Wake Forest and at the Montgomery Bell Academy.

As per my judging philosophy, I consider myself to be a flow judge. While I very much enjoy hearing original ideas and arguments over 90% of the time the round will be decided on what is going on with my flow. Consequently, clear proper extensions and impact analysis are critical to my ballot. Proper extensions includes clear taglines and cites, warrants, refutation, and impact analysis in rebuttals. Consequently, if I just hear "extend blah blah" you can expect me not to. While I am on the topic of warrants, I expect your evidence to contain them. If I suspect the evidence that is deciding the round was clipped or not read fully enough in round, I will likely read it before rendering my decision. I will give oral critiques when time and tournament rules permit me to, however this is not an invitation for you or your coach to argue with me. I never have nor will I change my ballot based on what was said in the critique and that silliness really impacts the fun of the activity.

As per types of argumentation, I am generally not predispositioned to vote on one type of argument vs. another. For example I am not a Kritik fanatic, counter plan, etc. As noted above, even for arguments I might think are silly I will still vote for them if they are debated well technically. Please note that the vast majority of theory debates I have seen I do not consider to be good primarily because there is a lack of warrants to the argument. For example, don't read "Number 15- PICs are bad, Number 16- advantages outweigh" and expect the ballot.

With all of that being said, I enjoy a FUN debate as long as it doesn't get out of hand. We do this because it is an activity that we enjoy, and consequently negative attitudes and/or comments will gain severe deductions on speaker points. On the other side, a representation of solid technical analysis and proper use of humor will likely be rewarded with higher speaker points.

I look forward to seeing your debate!