Walker,+Scott

Scott Walker Watertown High School '91 NDSU '94 SDSU '01 Affiliation: Watertown High School High School Coach 15 years

Speaking Style Preference: I am speech and debate teacher. Debate is a communication activity. I think it should be approached from the standpoint of strong speaking skills as well as strong argumentation skills. Don't forget that I have to understand what you are saying too.

Topicality: Running topicality purely for sport irritates me, and I think it diminishes those instances when the affirmative really is not topical. I will most definitely vote on topicality, but the affirmative needs to be doing something that warrants the argument. It is important for both sides to clearly indicate their interpretation of the topicality violation in the round.

Generic DA's: Ask yourself "does this advance my position in a positive manner?" If the debate on Politics is a giant race to the middle, is it advancing your position? I would be much happier to hear arguments actually tailored to the other team. I also understand that some affirmatives force you into generic argumentation - they should be well aware of that fact (I might ask how that advances their position as well.).

Critiques: This is not my first choice in a round. I suspect their are times when they are the best strategic choice. I can assume that the affirmative would be doing something fairly offensive at face value to warrant the strategy. Feel free to use your best judgement here.

Stock Issues: I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of case debate. I don't believe you must have massive advantages or disadvantages to win the round. I also understand there has to be a reason to vote either affirmative or negative so there has to be something to weigh in the round. Please do that. Do not assume that I will do the weighing for you. With that all in mind, it is important for affirmative teams to fulfill all of their burdens. If you can give me a reason to stick with the current system, I would be happy to vote negative. In order to vote affirmative, I should have a reason to do so.

Counterplans: There are definitely times to run them. I am not a fan of topical CP's or conditional CP's. Again there should be an intended outcome that advances your position if you are running a specific counterplan.

Conditionality: I think I covered that above, but I am not a fan of the "throw everything out there and see what sticks" strategy. You should have a reason for every argument you run and throwing out a million arguments to see what the affirmative/negative drops does not count as a reason to run an argument.

General Preferences: Please weigh the round for me. I guarantee both teams will be disappointed if I am left to decide the round on my own. I will not make arguments for either team. I can only vote on what you present in the round. I am not purposefully biased against any particular position, but I would be lying if I did not say I am biased in favor of a clear well constructed overall position in the round. I value thinking above everything in a round. I do not appreciate someone being a jerk simply because they can. I do appreciate the person who knows they are right and doesn't have to be rude to show it. Tag team cross-examination is not my favorite. Walking around aimlessly during the round is not my first choice. Basically, I think you should be respectful to everyone in the round with your actions.

Work in progress...