Schappaugh,+Steven

**Past Positions**: Director of Speech & Debate at University School (FL), Assistant Director of Forensics at Dowling Catholic High School in Iowa, LD coach at Myers Park High School in North Carolina and Assistant Coach at Des Moines North High School. None of my previous students compete for these schools in LD Debate
 * Current Position**: Director of Programs & Education for National Speech & Debate Association; Director of NDF


 * I am not actively coaching so am less familiar with topic literature, approaches, etc. I haven't seen any practice or competitive events. I am less able to flow "speed" than I used to be. I want to see a clean and enjoyable debate. I am who I am and will do my best to keep up with the round as it's presented. I'll give you my undivided attention and do my best to sort through everything and come to the best decision possible. If you want to debate as if you were being judged by the most recent graduate who is up-to-date on every nuance in theory, kritiks, and speed - I'm not your judge :) I'll listen, but don't be upset if you have an understanding of how something should operate and am frustrated I don't operate with those same assumptions. My old paradigm below still applies. **

As an LD judge I expect debaters to establish a standard for me to evaluate the round and then impact back to that standard. Debaters should also weigh arguments to the standard and establish a clear decision calculus for me at the end of the round. It is not imperative that a debater use the traditional value/criterion model of a standard; however, a standard must exist. Please articulate why the standard you advocate is the appropriate standard for the round and what must be done to meet it. If you have a standard and burdens analysis you need to be establishing which comes first and why that is the case. You cannot just have a standard and have a burden that are independent from one another and just plan to go for the one that's dropped or mishandled. I think that it makes sense to do that but there needs to be some greater strategy involved when you set up a case with burdens and standards. Is the burden something the opponent must do to win and that comes before you even look to any standard or does it function some other way? __**Do not leave me guessing how your burdens and standards function in a round.**__ I am not opposed to debaters going fast and I think that speed can be used to your strategic advantage and can be used to add depth to argumentation. When speed is gradually eased into I do a better job of keeping up with the debaters. __**I ask that if you go fast that you understand the need to ease into it, the need to clearly articulate and the importance of slowing down when you say author names**__. Not only that, but pay attention to my nonverbal cues as sometimes I cannot keep up with debaters and this can be especially true these days when I judge less frequently because of tabulation assignments or trying to manage a large group of kids on a trip. Please do not use speed as a crutch as that will only hurt your speaker points. Speed when combined with efficient word economy is preferred – otherwise the speed is useless and becomes a hindrance to your debating. I will not say clear in a debate round. I am willing to vote off of theory and apriori arguments. While I’m willing to do it I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the way debaters are throwing out theory arguments and apriori arguments. I expect that you offer concrete and substantiated reasons why something is theory or apriori. I expect that the nature of the argument is consistent throughout the rebuttals and does not turn into a: 30 argument that precludes your opponent’s offense after it was only one sentence in the constructive. Furthermore, I do not claim nor will I ever claim to be the best or most competent judge of theory and apriori issues. I think that there is a place for them in the activity but if you go all in on theory it needs to be 100% crystal clear because often times theory ends up being washed in the competitive rounds I judge. SLOW DOWN WHEN READING THEORY ARGUMENTS and SIGN POST EXTREMELY CLEARLY when reading counter-interps. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness and going new in the 2. After that I base speaker points on overall strategy and effectiveness in implementing the strategy. Part of that has to do with how well you speak, but again, you can speak quickly and still get high speaker points. I am not against giving out 30 speaker points; however, it will take a lot to do that. I love LD and try to be a fair and consistent judge. I am human and thus I will not understand everything you say. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand and will not vote on arguments that seem to be one thing in one speech and then become something else in another. Should you have any questions I hope that you will ask them of me before the round so that I can provide you as much information as possible before the round begins.