Stauber,+Tony

I am not an active coach, but I was the head debate coach and assistant speech coach at Chanhassen High School (MN)

I’ve coached LD, PF and Congress for 5 years

//Updated 11/416// What I value about the activity of debate is the research and argument-creating process. I am aware of the variety of resources from which debaters can draw arguments and evidence, and I am not insensitive to the reasons why many choose to do so. However, I really disfavor debates that center around arguments and cases that I am well-aware you did not write. Stock K's, generic constructives, and canned CPs disappoint me as a coach and as an educator.
 * Lincoln Douglas**

Additionally, I hate this trend I have seen of LD getting more and more divorced from reality. Yes, this is an activity that asks you to question assumptions, often through abstraction. That does not mean that we solve for racism by getting naked in front of your pets (yes, I have actually heard that argument). I want to leave the round thinking that I have learned something and that the three of us have gotten closer to understanding the truth.

My biggest rule: **Truth > Tech**

That being said, here is a more concrete list of the things that I do and do not want to see.

1. I think that running a plan in the AC is not particularly appropriate.

2. I don't care what you have posted on the wiki. I'm not going to read it, and I assume that your opponent hasn't either. Don't try to justify running an abusive argument (or plan or counterplan) by saying it was posted and that your opponent had adequate notice. I'm not buying it.

3. Speed is a good way to cram more content into your speech. That does not give you an excuse to make a dozen bad arguments in place of two good ones. I'll respect whatever your style is, but it's probably not going to earn you any points either way.

4. I respect the role of the kritik in this style of debate. As debaters, we are asked to question our assumptions. Ks are a good way to do that.

4a. Not all kritiks link to the resolution, and I'm not going to go for bad links. This probably means that you'll need to do more work than just pulling up and reading your stock Victory Briefs will-to-power K.

5. I think formalized theory arguments dumb down a debate. If you have a problem with something your opponent is doing, there are ways to address that without having to resort to whiny, time-wasting, nonsense T arguments

5a. Generally-speaking, I hate debates about debate. An argument that says "this creates more education in the round" is no argument at all.

6. I actually think counterplans should be less stigmatized in LD debate. They can provide an interesting analysis of opportunity cost of affirming that is basically impossible to argue otherwise.

7. Do not argue with me after the round. You're debating your opponent, you accept that I'm the expert. I assume that the losing team is going to say that I'm wrong. Whine about it with your teammates later.

8. I think Victory Briefs and other camps are bringing debate in the wrong direction. Don't cite cards from VBI or former debaters and pretend they are gospel truth. If you have evidence that specifically mentions methods in HS debate, I will call for the card and if it is not in a peer-reviewed journal from an unaffiliated author, I will vote you down.

I coach IE as well as debate, and I specialize in Oratory and Extemp Speaking. My ideal PF round would have the content and argumentation of Extemp with the oratory skills of OO. That is my 30. Unfortunately, I know that a lot of teams sacrifice oratory skills to get in more information, and that is fine with me. Speak fast, but don’t get into LD/Policy territory.
 * Public Forum**

I’m all about weighing. Rarely can a team eliminate all offense from their opponents, so this requires some sort of weighing metric. Magnitude = Probability x Scope. That how I teach my kids, but you can weigh however you’d like, just make sure you do it. Besides that, I am a straight-forward PF judge. Debate the issues in the resolution, don’t try any semantic hocus pocus.
 * Things I hate in PF**: 1) Supercharged impacts. I know that thermonuclear holocaust is a bigger impact than a loss in GDP, but that doesn’t mean that you can find a link from Public Subsidies to nuclear war. If it is a stretch, I will do my best to find a way to vote against it. 2) Complicated framework. Cost/Benefit is the default framework for PF. If you want to argue deontology, you are in the wrong event. That being said, I understand that different resolutions require certain limits on the debate. Be fair and don’t try to rule out arguments rather than debate them. 3) Assuming the judge will intervene. I’ve seen this run rampant in my local circuit—teams trying to refute their opponents by reading a card and then moving onto the next argument. I need you to tell me what to do with your arguments. I will do everything I can to stay completely out of the debate. If you need me to do your work for you, we’ll have a rough round.