Schaefer,+Lauran

GA/Parli Coach, Texas Tech University
This is my philosophy for Parli; the same concepts apply in LD: Overall, I honestly want debaters to do what they do best in round. I do have a few caveats, however. First, I was never a theory debater and I can get lost in them very easily. I would suggest a few things, most importantly, slow down on the most relevant parts of the theory debate, specifically interpretations. So be advised, I need a clear story and proven abuse to feel comfortable with a decision on theory. I understand in some cases where the other team meets your interpretation, but you don’t have any good positions to go for, in that case be as clear as possible. Second, I prefer probability to magnitude and I will explain that in a later section. __ 1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. __

I’m probably too generous with speaker points. I generally give between a 27-29 and avoid 30’s unless the speech is close to perfect. If the round is full of speakers who are generally at the same level, I default to giving the best a 29, the second best a 28.5, etc.

__1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?__

I really like critical debates. Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Specifically, tell me why this particular critical aff is warranted. Your interpretation can’t be some “reject blah blah” that are somehow mutually exclusive and some bs solvency telling me how the world will all of a sudden change their mindsets from collapsing some “ism.” Although, I ran arguments like that, I now see that made me a bad debater. J Explain your solvency. What does the world look like after the action is taken? This seems to be missing in most critical debates.

__1. 3. Performance based arguments…__

I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them.

__1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?__

Like I said, I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet. I’m not sure I would even know what to do with out one unless you’re critiquing T.

__ 1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? __

PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it.

__1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)__

I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that.

__1. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?__

Procedurals are obviously first. Next, I would go to framework, if necessary, to determine if the K comes first. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate.

__1. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?__

I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.

__Other Things__ Forrest Gump, Keith Stone and Honey BooBoo references are a good idea.