Schulte,+Don

Schulte, Don

In policy debate...I'm a minimalist, old school judge. I've been debating as a student or coaching since the fall of 1978. Your chances of losing increase precisely in proportion to your speed of speech increasing. I believe debate is being destroyed by "speed and spread" insanity. The purpose of speech is to communicate...and anything that decreases communication is contrary to the purpose of speech. I like a good stock issue round of policy. I love wit and thoughtful banter. Arguments should have support. Arguments should link to the evidence itself...not to tags that are unrelated to the content of the quotes. Debate is an __ORAL__ communication activity. If your opponent asks for your case/plan for any reason other than to question authenticity of a quote I will absolutely, totally support you if you politely say "No". Kritiks will usually lead to you receiving a loss...if the other team is smart enough to realize that they should spend their time on the topic at hand. The best respond to K is to just say to me "That has nothing to do with this round." As far as I'm concerned...you beat the K. Kritik debate is for people who wish to avoid debate. Topicality is usually a "time-suck"...run it (I know why it's a "voter") and move on to better, real arguments.

In Lincoln-Douglas debate...I like intellectual clash. A well-chosen example is probably the best way to persuade me. Speed is evil...don't do it! Speed and rudeness will not be tolerated! Speed and rudeness are what damaged policy debate so much that LD had to be created in the first place! If you speed-up...I stop flowing so I can try and hear/remember your points. If you want me to flow your arguments...use a reasonable speed of delivery. Debate is an __ORAL__ communication activity. If your opponent asks for your case/plan for any reason other than to question authenticity of a quote I will absolutely, totally support you if you politely say "No". Warning: if you're going to use a particular philosopher's thoughts you better know what you're talking about beyond a few generalities!

In Public Forum...I love the witty-banter of a well-argued resolution. Examples reign in PuF! Bring the round to the few points of importance and push those points through.

In Student Congress...I'm a believer in decorum. Speeches should be witty, filled with NEW information, and meaningful. Canned speeches are lifeless unless you tie the points into the discussion. I know a thing or two about parliamentary procedure and love to watch a PO who blends the rules with a reasonable, fair outlook.

I attended Pattonville High School in St Louis, MO. I attended the NFL National Tournament in Salt Lake City in 1981 as a contestant in Student Congress. I took my BSed from the University of Missouri-Columbia (1984) and my MAT from Webster University (1997). I served as communications director for the 1998 NFL "Gateway Nationals" at Pattonville. I've worked several years on the NFL Congress staff at Nationals; helped staff the NCFL Grand National Tournament; authored a Rostrum article about Student Congress; and authored __The Presiding Officer Handbook__ in 2003. I'm also a NFL three-diamond coach.