Baxter-Kauf,+Kate

Kate Baxter-Kauf

About 8 high school debates, many tournaments attended and administrated. No college tournaments attended.
 * Judging Experience on this topic (2010-2011):**


 * Affiliation:** Minnesota Urban Debate League (Minneapolis North, South, Patrick Henry, and Washburn, and Saint Paul Central, Highland Park, Humboldt, and Como Park HS, in addition to 9 Mpls/Saint Paul middle schools).
 * Background:** I am currently employed as the program coordinator for the Minnesota Urban Debate League. I do a lot of logistics work and very little actual debate coaching. I attend law school at the University of Minnesota. I debated for Macalester College, and at Shawnee Mission East HS in Kansas. I spent a few years coaching at the University of Rochester and the University at Buffalo.


 * Philosophy**:

1. Fundamentally, I believe that people in debate rounds should do whatever it is that they want to do. I would prefer that you debate in front of me doing whatever it is that you're good at, or like doing, or think you have the most chance of winning with, rather than try to impress me by reading arguments to which you think I'm predisposed. I certainly have preferences towards certain arguments, and if you have questions about something, ask me. By and large, however, I would rather just facilitate you doing what you want to do. I prefer good debates on things I hate FAR BEFORE I want to watch bad debates on things I love. Honestly, I’m not even sure what types of debates you would think I would want to watch, since my debate career was filled with mostly bizarre argumentation. So do what you're good at. I have a soft spot in my heart for the scrappy.

2. Winning debates in front of me is largely about winning how the debate gets decided. Honestly, in most debates, I think there needs to be much more debate about debate (and by that, I do not mean theory). This should include: a discussion of what you’re winning, with contingency statements, a discussion of what the other team said or should have said and didn’t, and what factors I should use to decide which team to vote for. If you are doing these things, you are in much better shape. This means I like overviews, albeit not of the half your speech variety. It means also that I have a lower threshold for arguments some folks would consider ‘cheap,’ assuming you’re doing the work.

2a. Defend what you do! I watch all of these debates where one team indicts some of the debate arguments or practices of the other team, and the indicted team just fails to engage. Policy Debate is a spectacular activity – many of the practices that we engage in are both defensible and educational. This is not to say that there aren’t problems, and I enjoy discussions about them, but don’t abdicate the high ground. I think more people should get indignant. Figure out what you’re defending – fiat good is not a panacea. In many debates I watch, teams would be well served by a discussion of the function of the line-by-line, the purpose of policy debate, and the purpose of voting affirmative (or negative).

3. I will talk to you. I try to be fair about it, and I like pretty much everyone, but I'll probably talk to you.

4. A note about speaker points: I used to give much higher speaker points, but I think I'm pretty average at this point. I still think that my floor is higher than most. This does not bother me in the slightest. I reserve the right to give points for pretty much anything I feel like at any time. I have been known to give bonus points for things I find amusing/interesting/generally good. If you are mean I will give lower points in addition to being angry.

Anything else, you should probably just ask.