Langgin,+Mark

Assistant Coach at Indianola High School (Indianola, IA)
 * Currently:**

Iowa City West High School (2000-2002) Ottumwa High School (1996-1999)
 * Formerly coached at:**

Debated at Ottumwa High School (Ottumwa, IA - Class of '95) & University of Northern Iowa

I come from a policymaking "background/focus" as a debater, but have debated both critical and performance type arguments. I have coached & debated on a number of high school and college topics and there isn't much I haven't heard before. I'm fine with a good fast debate with good depth in argumentation. If I can't understand you and can't flow the body of a piece of evidence it is likely I won't ask for it at the end of a debate. Also, if you want me to read evidence at the end of the round it's important that you flag cards by tag/cite so I have something to reference back to on the flow.

Topicality is primarily a question of abuse and limits, but typically I employ a balancing test when it comes to limits debates & questions of in round/potential abuse. Generally not someone who buys into big "Competing Interpretation" debates unless there is some showing of potential/in round abuse.

Theory - I tend to view theory debates as a "sum total" of what's going on theory wise in a debate. For example running one conditional argument may be OK most of the time, but the combination of a conditional CP, a dispositional critique alternative, and an overlimiting topicality interpretation makes for more slippery ground for the negative....this goes ditto for affirmatives that push the boundaries on theory/topicality.

Critique arguments are interesting and can be great when debated well. Ultimately it's a "links in vs. links out" question for me. "State Bad" links are NOT very compelling to me...I also interpret the "alternative" to the critique much like I would a counterplan - theory, perms, etc...

I enjoy big disad debates, lots of depth and good cards...same goes for case debate. Counterplans must compete - they need to be combined with a reason to reject the affirmative.