Eichele,+Ross

My name is Ross Eichele and I'm a coach and librarian at Eagan High School in Eagan, MN. Before that I taught at Blaine High School in Blaine, MN.

LD: You would do well to think of me as a traditional LD judge. I think debaters should focus on the issue(s) presented in the resolution. Personally, I appreciate debaters who write cases that address the core issue(s) of the resolution. I don't really want to spend a round listening to theory unless one side is presenting a case that is //very// abusive. It will be a good round, and you will be rewarded with speaker points, if you and your opponent have a debate on the core issue(s) of the resolution.

I really appreciate debates in which the debaters debate about the standard/criterion. I really appreciate debaters who clearly link their arguments and the impacts of their arguments to the standard/criterion. That being said, I will attempt to go with whatever is on the flow. As a communicator, it is your obligation to make sure I get your arguments on my flow sheet. This means two important things: (1) you have to make sure I'm with you and (2) you have to make sure to explain your arguments. Don't assume that everything you think you said is perfectly understood by everyone in the room. Personally, I believe trying to speak fast creates more harms than benefits for a speaker. I think it is more important to make one or two strong arguments than to spew eight or ten poorly constructed/explained arguments. Making several incredible arguments with speed is okay. Using speed to mumble through a list of cookie cutter arguments to spread your opponent will not earn you many speaker points.

CD: I adjudicate the round by evaluating who is the best legislator. This means a combination of several different things. A good legislator advocates her/his position throughout the round with questions, speeches, and motions that advance the debate. You can speak really well, but if it is rehash or doesn't address issues on the flow you won't rank well. A good legislator encourages debate, but rarely takes or portrays things personally. S/he makes sure everyone who wishes to speak has spoken before making a motion to end/limit/suspend debate. S/he is willing to make a motion to end debate if the speeches are rehash, aren't advancing debate, or do not address the issues on the flow. A good legislator can speak in a variety of positions-framing and introducing the debate, refuting arguments, and/or crystallizing the debate. A good legislator is willing to serve as the presiding officer to insure a round runs smooth for other legislators. A good P.O. makes a round happen for everyone. A poor P.O. causes debate to lag and ends up preventing debate. If you wish to preside, do it well.

PF: I adjudicate the round as a lay judge. I really appreciate debaters who clearly link their arguments and the impacts of their arguments to the resolution. It is your obligation to make sure I understand your arguments and how they fit the big picture of the debate in context of the resolution. Rudeness in general, but especially in crossfire will never be rewarded..

CX: It's been years (a decade) since I've actively coached CX. Be smart about your audience....think stock issues, communicate with me, and read the information about to get a clear picture of how to win my ballot..

In terms of speaker points, my range is generally somewhere between 25 and 28. I rarely go below 25 and if I do it will be explained on the ballot. I rarely give out a 30...to date I've given out a total of five 30s in my life..

You are more than welcome to ask questions not addressed here before the round begins. Almost all of my feedback will be on the ballot.

Good luck and best wishes.