Caleb Drechsel - competed in Speech and Debate 2008-2011; 5+ year coach.

Tl;dr:

More traditional than progressive, though I enjoy a good kritic

Quality > Quantity - a clearly spoken word is more effective than speed-reading gibberish.

If I didn't flow it, I didn't find it important enough (or I missed it) -rarely votes on flow-points

Claim, Warrant, IMPACT

VOTERS - much good, very nice, more please.

---

As a debater, coach, educator, and community member, I believe debate is a form of collaborative truth-seeking. As such, I am not here to count points. I am here to listen, learn, and follow where the truth points me... And decide who won my ballot!

You and your opponent are my guides in that truth. I take you both as assumed-experts on the resolution, and so a great way to win my trust is to show yourself competent on the topic and context. Debate is not always an either/or decision. I may agree and want a resolution but withhold my vote because sufficient doubt was cast on it, or I'm not comfortable with the reasoning for it. That being said, I may have great concerns about a resolution/bill, but the NEG/CON didn't give me sufficient reason to justify those reservations.

It's what you say... Not what you "meant" to say. I try to be aware of the curse of my own knowledge so that I do not fill in your arguments. I hope I can summarize your argument at the end of the round, so give me signposts, key phrases, and impacts to track. I am less concerned with whether or not your opponent hit every one of your contentions. I am more concerned that I can follow your argument, that I am not having to fill in gaps because I could not understand or comprehend your thoughts. My voting record shows I am swayed more by clear, informed arguments than spread, jargon-heavy contention-bashing.

...And how you say it. Debate is communication and connection between you, your audience, and your message. Treat your judge and opponent with respect - both in your words, behavior, and tone. If spreading your case requires you to shout, spit, gasp, or disconnect from your words, it probably will influence my decision. Consider the irony and dissonance in shouting "IT'S FINE!" and the confusion of describing the theoretical end of the world in the same voice you'd order a burger.

My RFDs tend to follow this pattern: The AFF argued the resolution by [my summary of their position]; the Neg tried to argue/show [my summary of their position]. I voted for the [winner] because...[RFD]; I would have voted for the [loser] if... [feedback].

If time allows, I try to briefly (1 sentence) disclose verbally a strength I saw in each case (though time rarely allows in tournaments outside of finals), and what I would offer for improvement - either in the case itself or in delivery. I recognize I am one judge and a specific audience member, so please take any feedback or suggestions accordingly.

Below are some more specifics in my mindset around different debate types:

Lincoln-Douglas... is a value debate. Cards (evidence) help us relate reality to the values and moral obligations that guide us. Philosophies are frameworks of thought and morality, but ultimately, we must consider the actual and practical impact of those values on our world. I find myself voting most often on which debater/argument gives me confidence in a position.

I'm far less concerned with how "safety" is infinitely more important than "justice" - both are important. I am far more interested in which value is most appropriate or important in the resolution, and how the value criterion can guide us to a position on that resolution. we can find an "island" - a solution - where we can have both to the maximum potential.

Public Forum ... is a fact debate. We are seeking to understand the costs and benefits of a given action in a scenario. Cards and evidence help us be confident in whether supporting the resolution will have a better/worse outcome than the status quo. I look to both sides to inform me of what factors, details, and considerations should be most important when I vote.

It is also a team debate. While I do not vote on teamwork or speaker points/performance in the round, I do actively resist voting for low-point wins.

Congress... Simulates our policy-making process. You are not there to perform a speech but to convince an audience of your peers to vote in favor or withhold support for a given bill or resolution. You are there to use Parliamentary procedure to ensure the social contract is upheld for your constituents.

Speakers should contribute to debate and progress the flow of debate on a bill - not just read a prepared speech. Signpost your speech by references previous speakers, points or concerns, or clear indicators you are introducing a new contention. Call for specific actions from your colleagues, give them voters, use your tone and character to create appropriate urgency for what is being considered. DIRECT QUESTIONING: Ido take not of competitors who stand out (or flounder) during direct questioning. Questions are not always antagonistic or combative but can also collaborate with the speaker.

Presiding Officers: You are to lead the chamber. I will support your decisions while protecting the integrity of the chamber. In Open, I will stop an out-of-order motion from the Chair, but I will wait for you to correct out-of-order behavior before interrupting. That being said, if you feel I made a mistake, you can use that as an opportunity to model Robert's Rules and challenge me! I want to give your as many opportunities to showcase your skill to the judges (and draw their attention to it).

Policy... is an evaluation of a comprehensive policy that fulfills the spirit of the resolution. In Policy debate, the debaters can use the stock issues to signpost, label, or otherwise present their plan to fulfill the resolution. The assumed goal is solvency of the proposed resolution or a counterplan. Cards become the backbone of these constructive arguments and should guide me in how to weigh the significance of harms and inherency of factors, advantages, and disadvantages of each case plan.

I respect that this debate format encourages spreading to meet these expectations, but I have yet to be convinced that a debater should be evaluated by their speed to read words over the clarity, tone, and rhetorical technique in delivering those words. I also have yet to see a real-world application of the skill in the debates and public forums of our world - specifically those that craft and present policy. I admit I often find myself led more by the narrative of an argument more than the number of arguments. In other words, the volume of evidence and warrant given should be measured and framed appropriately to what effectively links the claim with the impact.

---

Thank you for your time and dedication in this activity! I encourage you to not lose sight of the purpose and application of the skills you're practicing here: research, listening, comprehension, critical thinking, speaking, rhetoric, analysis, etc. You are coming of age in a world where nearly every person is one swipe/click away from being/finding an audience. Your ability to speak to be understood and listen to understand (Sean Covey) will determine whether you become a mover or the unconsciously moved.

My Paradigm is a good roadmap/signposting and avoid logical fallacies

My name is Carlos Santos (He/Him/His), I debated in Spokane briefly at Lewis and Clark High School and would consider myself closer to lay than experienced as a judge (though I am learning!). I am the coach for North Central High School and this will be my second year back in the debate circuit. While I am more familiar with traditional debate styles, I am open to progressive debating and do my best to view unfamiliar debate styles impartially.

General: Time limits are to be followed, speaker points are not debatable, self-timing is acceptable.

Policy/LARP – Policy/LARP arguments are fine but avoid contrived scenarios.

K - K aff should be able to provide contextual answers to framework. K affs should have a clear advocacy, whether that be enacted or embodied through performance or advocating a philosophical re-orientation towards/away from the resolution. If you're moving away from the resolution, you need an embedded critique of the resolution - this will give you a large leg up in front of me on the t-framework debate – vague arguments on oppression/racism/capitalism without clear structural analysis and coherent theories of power make it difficult to evaluate within the round.

1 NC K - When using Kritik in the 1NC, you should be able to clearly shift the burden of addressing the underlying issues of the debate to the affirmative. I do not mind at all being asked to consider assumptions I have made regarding the framework of the debate.

Framework: Provide clear structure in framework debate – be sure to elaborate on how I (as the judge) should be interpreting the rules within the round as well as how the round should be judged and provide sound reasoning for this interpretation.

CP – Counterplan should provide a reasonable alternate course of action with a net benefit over the plan – avoid contrived scenarios with unclear net benefits. Your text should be clear in stating your advocacy. Elaborate on how the counterplan is competitive to the plan and provide a net benefit to the counterplan.

DA – disad should operate with a clear link to the plan, please provide evidence and have a clear impact. Because DA impact should be considerable, provide multiple links. Long link chains are acceptable as long as they all relate back to your claim. Impact should be broad and clearly outweigh the affirmative, turn case, or at least nullify the 1AC advantage(s). Impact turns are challenging to do well and inoffensively. Use them only if you are certain it will be effective.

Performance – Performance can be an effective way to communicate narratives that operate outside of the dominant cultural narrative, but make sure the impact is carried beyond the 1AC. Use it as a connection between each part of the round.

T – I have no issue with topicality debates and aff should be prepared to defend against with a clear, delineated counter-interpretation. I am fine with theory debates – just make sure your interpretation is clear and provide a reason for me to give you the ballot or drop the argument

I am a head coach at Ferris High School in Spokane, WA, and I have coached there for 15 years.

 

My judging style is open to many forms of arguments, but I like them to be well-constructed and capable of passing the "reality" test. I believe that the decision in the round should be based on the arguments presented in that round. If you choose to use speed as a tactic, please make sure that you are able to be very clear. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow your arguments.  They need to be on the flow for a role in the decision.  Analytics, warrants, and evidence text are essential to the round; make sure that I can understand them. 

 

I have no problem with theory, but it needs to be used in a manner that makes sense for the round. Please do not use outrageous or whiney theory.  It is the job of the debater using theory to explain the process/function as well as how it impacts the potential decision for the round. Again, this will come back to the "reality" or "common sense" tests. Theory should still have some basis in the way the world actually works or should work.

 

The overall impact of the debate round should be moving the discussion and thought about the resolution forward.  I like rounds that can effectively demonstrate ethical research and cutting of cards.  The objective should not be to force a narrow set of cards or body of evidence to say what you want them to say rather than what they really do say.  I will listen to evidence closely and evaluate their use.  The debate should be interactive, and the rounds should reflect the two sides in opposition rather than appearing pre-set or canned.

 

Debate is a communication art.  Speaker points allow the judge to effectively evaluate delivery and performance.  30 speaker points should be reserved for the very best of speakers in the competition.  I do not believe that points should be awarded simply based on the victory.  Points are earned through clear, precise communication and the crafting of logical arguments.

I come from the business world and expect advocates to speak and present their arguments in a manner that would be considered appropriate in a work environment. Said another way, persuade with your argument, logic and evidence, not through the presentation of fake emotion and dramatic shouting. If the cases have been chosen well, there is no black and white answer but there are good and bad lines of logic. In most of these cases, you should be persuading the other team of your argument, not me.

The human brain does not take in information when it is being shouted at; quite the contrary. Shouting is a tool to get somebody's attention, not a means of communicating logic. I will not make extraordinary efforts to uncover the logic of your argument if you've covered it over with continuous loud verbal overtones.

What you are doing here is difficult, it takes practice. If you fail, brush it off and try again. Everything is hard at first, and then it gets easier.

• Feel free to use your own timer if you like.
• Sit or stand, whichever helps you perform your best.

Congres:

I want to see you bring your own personality to your argument style, if you like using props and visuals, use them (as long as it does not waste time), if you prefer citing various legal documents instead, go for it, whatever works best for your speech style. Amendments are welcome, as are caucuses for dockets or votes. I prefer a more formal chamber and follow the NSDA Congressional book. Your speeches should not be re-iterations of speeches I have already heard unless you have something new to that argument and need to recap the concept briefly. I love it when people respond to the chamber and use Clash in Questioning.

Remember that in the end congress is a performance for the judge and have fun with it.

Parli Notes:

Please as a PO open space for paradigms for judges, and if you have questions about policy/procedure I usually try to have the first few minutes (below 10) open for questions before nominations. This is not speech time or judged but is meant to help you. This can be anything from how to go to the bathroom during the round, to what is a caucus and why it exists. I keep my recency/precedency digitally and if you would like a copy it is in excel sheet and you just have to ask.

I am here to help you

Please be clear, concise and to the point. I want to hear data backed up by sources. I will look at body language and how authentic and comfortable you are as well. Be yourself!