Charrier,+Andy

Andy Charrier. Edina High School (MN).

I am the head coach at Edina.

__Before you rank me - read this__: My professional life out of debate is spent helping East African students learn to use communication skills as an alternative to violence. My hobby is intensely coaching a team of over 100 debaters competing in all debate formats + extemp and oratory. I primarily coach LD on a moderate circuit and Extemp.

__I want you to engage each other on the question posed by the resolution__. LD has too often become a battle over who can develop and win a framework that precludes or marginalizes opposing views. So rather than debating - having substantive clash - we instead pursue a strategy least-clash, where winning is accomplished not on the merits of the resolution by a procedural outflanking. It's crazy that people are reading 3, 4, or even 5 minutes of framework and then slipping in some offense as if it's an afterthought. This doesn't mean you need to resort to 1980's square-state style debate either. You can be fast, critical, evidence heavy, etc. But if I have to pick between an easy-to-process framework and one that's complicated and esoteric, I'm going for the easy way out.
 * LD Debate**

Debate at a moderate pace and have good content supported by quality evidence. I've grown weary of arguments structured like this: "Argument One is true for 9 reasons..." followed by 9 one-sentence blips. I'd prefer 2 evidenced/warranted over 9 or 10 one-liners. Blippy answers invite (or are) a form of judge intervention because you are asking me to add words or infer meaning to your arguments. One sentence answers that are simply a restatement of the opposing tag phrase worded in negation are not going to get much/any traction in my book.

Comparing competing worlds is my method and this means that the neg needs to do more than just complain about the aff. Offense wins, defense not so much. An alternative advocacy needs to be competitive and not affirm the resolution.

I WILL NOT EVALUATE THEORY. If you have a beef with your opponent, debate provides you many paths to resolve that disagreement, If you are looking for theory wins, I'm not your judge.

Negatives win way too many debates simply because they draw the aff away from their original case. Affs: You can let neg win some stuff and then provide ways to prove you outweigh or have better impact analysis.

I'm only calling cards for a matter of ethics. I use my flow to decide the debate. Your words and explanations are important to me. I'm not looking at cards or blocks when the round is over and then re-reading arguments.

To review: Debate in depth, have solid warrants, resolve clash. Listen to each others evidence, critically analyze the specific cards, and weigh/evaluate them. That's your path to a 30. Most debates are 28/27 or 29/28 for points.

Finally, a note on respectful debating: It goes without saying that swearing in or at the debate is unacceptable to me and is a sure path to about 20 speaker points. Shake hands at the end of the debate, speaking kindly towards your opponent, etc. Act as though your parents and principal are watching you debate -- that's a pretty good guide. I will give you a brief oral RFD at the end of the round, but I'm not comfortable with string of follow-up questions that are really disguised as "You should have voted for me." But if you really don't understand, later in the day I'm happy to tell you how I see things.

I judge LD, Extemp, Oratory, and Policy. I've judged/watched about a dozen rounds on the topic. so I understand the basic rules of the road. I'll listen to all and judge as fair as I can. What helps me is if you resolve clash between competing claims.
 * Policy Debate**

Here are answers to a few FAQs:

__K's and K affs__ - I need 3 things in these debates: 1) a solid link story; 2) explanation of your K interacts with opposing side; 3) impact analysis - keep in mind I'm a policy-maker at heart, so think about that when needing to get my ballot.

__Affs without plan-texts__. These are interesting debates. I need a lot of guidance in terms of how I should weigh competing positions.

__Topicality__. Highly unlikely I'll vote on this.

__Speed__. You can debate as fast or slow as you like. I'll call "clear" as needed. I want to judge the debate based on the words you use in your speeches and not on my re-reading of your evidence. Upload your speech docs to Pocketbox and that will help me immensely -- I'm not looking at your evidence for content as much as I am direction. I want your words from the debate to be memorable, not my reading into your evidence.

__Disclosure and openness__. I hope that teams will debate in the context of openness and sharing. Honest pre-round disclosure and in-round honesty are encouraged because both make for much better debates.

I judge PF like I would judge a round of OO or Extemp. Speed, analysis, etc. should match the quality of those two events. What I've written below for LD regarding clash applies here as well. Especially important to explain warrants for your claims.
 * Public Forum**

PF teams need to be honest and ethical. Share cases and evidence, don't be a sneak and try to deny things you've said or be evasive in CF. Cards need to be quotations not paraphrases.

Posted: October 11, 2005 Updated: September 2, 2007 Updated: August 19, 2008 Updated: September 10, 2009 Updated, September 25, 2009 Updated, September 6, 2013 Updated, December 13, 2013 Updated, June 12, 2014 Updated, Sept 5, 2016 Updated, Oct 19, 2016