Baumann,+Rachel

Rosemount High School, (MN)
__ Background __ -I am in my second year as co-JV/Varsity coach at Rosemount High School. Previously, I debated for 4 years in high school, 4 years at Concordia College, was assistant coach at Mankato East High School and was Director of Debate at Forest Lake High School. While coaching at Forest Lake, our team travelled to national circuit tournaments in Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota. I have coached teams to elimination rounds at local, national circuit, state and NFL tournaments. During and after collage, I was on staff at the Concordia Summer Debate Institute. During the 2015-2016 season, I've judged many rounds at the 8 tournaments I've been to. (so far)

__ General Philosophy __ : I am an educator by profession and as such, I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a fairly liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. I am a fan of Toulmin. An argument is not a long, or short winded sentence stated by a debater in a round. An argument has a claim, data to support it and a reason WHY that claim is true. Simply because a high school student tells me to "vote here" or to "extend" does not provide me a compelling reason to believe that statement is an argument, or that the statement is true, in a debate world. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.

This activity is a communication activity and calling cards will be my last resort in trying to resolve an issue. In this technological age, remember that I do not have a computer in front of me with everyone's evidence available at my fingertips. If you want to draw attention to a specific piece of evidence/argument, please tell me where you are so I can flow the argument in a corresponding spot on my flow.

I also LOVE the dying art of signposting. If you do not signpost, or provide an organizational structure beyond the word, "Next", you are inviting me to create my own structure. Please try to call the position you are debating by the same name it was given when it was introduced.

I am also a fan of debaters being good human beings. Being kind, polite and remembering that we are all humans goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were inexperienced at one point, as well. Additionally, I believe people should be consistent, both in terms of their arguments and, in the world of the K, in their advocacy. For example, if you are advocating an ecofeminism position and call your opponents "you guys" when they are *not* guys, is problematic.

In terms of specific issues: __ Topicality __ – One of my favorite positions. Topicality, I believe, stems from plan. I appreciate a well debated T argument where there is clash over the definition and interpretation. Standards are used to determine which definition/interpretation to use. I also believe that there is a place for debate about the nuances of how T functions in the round. As a basic "rule" of the game, I am inclined to believe that a case needs to be topical to be considered in a round, but that is not to say that I haven't ever voted for a non-topical aff or a topical counterplan. In those instances, topicality was the one of the main argument in the round and well developed. The teams agreed to the "rules" being interpreted differently so who am I to impose my opinion on them? That being said, running T as a time suck is not a super compelling argument to me either. There are times there is a strategic reason for that, and I respect that approach. But if it is a time suck that becomes a real issue in the 2NR, you need to win the argument on the flow. __ Critical arguments (K's and Profo) __ – This is the area of biggest change for me as I have returned to coaching. I haven't heard a K yet that I don't "get", but I have seen many debaters run this as an argument and it is apparent that the debater isn't familiar with the underpinnings of the argument they are advocating. I am happy to listen to the argument and I enjoy a round where the debaters are well versed in the function of the K in the round, but please remember to explain to me how these arguments interact with the other arguments in the round and what I'm supposed to *do* with the argument should you win, or not win, the argument. I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground. __ Theory __ – These arguments are fine, but I want the debaters in the round to be explaining to me WHY the argument is important in the round and WHAT I'm supposed to do with this argument within the context of the round. For example, just because you say "Role of the Ballot", please don't assume that my interpretation is the same as yours. Explain to me what you mean and how that impacts the round __ Speed __ - I was a fast debater, and I can take a fast flow. Speed for the sake of speed isn't a way to win a round if I can't understand what you are saying. Please adjust your volume to the environment you are in. Whispering while reading makes it very challenging to hear your arguments. __ Evidence __ - I tend to not call cards. I believe it is your job to interpret and analyze the evidence in the round. If there is a reason to prefer your evidence, please make that argument in the round. __ Technology __ - Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive out of your computer, not before. I understand that it takes between 15-30 seconds to upload to your opponents computer. Taking longer than that or repeated technological problems will come out of someone's prep time. To make everyone's life easier, I'd suggest an e-mail chain, but that's just me.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask.