Last changed on
Mon February 8, 2021 at 5:04 AM CDT
RULE #1 DON'T BE AN JERK. If you have to ask me whether something counts as being a jerk, it probably does. Be assertive. Be confident. But don't be an asshole. Bringing up new arguments too late in the debate counts as being a jerk.
My background:
I competed in LD, Congress, and Extemp in high school (07-11) in Mississippi. Some PF thrown in there. In undergrad, I did IPDA. I have judged at every opportunity since graduating high school. For a short while, I was the coach at the start-up team at Great Hearts Classical School in Irving. I am no longer affiliated with that school.
Housekeeping/Logistics
-Please do not time your opponent’s speeches. Time yourself, by all means. I will be timing both of you, including prep, so I can give good feedback on how you used your time. I will stop flowing if they go over time. Leave that to me. If your timer goes off during your opponent’s speech, I will hold that against YOU.
- I will give you a signal when you have 15 seconds left. Don’t be alarmed; I’m in no rush. I just want to be prepared in case your timer died, you haven’t thought to look at it, etc. I don’t mind giving additional time signals upon request.
- You can include me in the email chain for your case/sources, but YOU are responsible for defending your sources’ credibility and challenging your opponent’s.
General Paradigms (LD, Extemp, Congress, PF)
This is fundamentally an educational event. I’m a teacher. You are students. Show me you LEARNED something that will translate outside of this activity. Such as . . .
Communication – It doesn’t have to be flowery, but it does need to be clear. I value concise communication and knowing what to emphasize.
Critical Thinking – don’t just throw a bunch of cards at me and expect me to be impressed. Anyone can read cards someone else on their team found. Analyze the claims of the sources and of your opponent. Does it all depend on a faulty assumption or a leap of logic? Is this person creating a false dichotomy? Are you really listening to and responding to your opponent’s arguments, or are you putting them in a box and creating a straw man? Show me you know how to think through this topic like a rational human, like a future voter and participant in public discourse.
Research skills – Not all evidence is created equal. In 2021, information literacy is an invaluable skill. Show me you can analyze a source. Anyone with a search engine can find an “expert opinion” that states whatever they want it to. That doesn’t mean research is worthless. It does mean you have to show discernment about what sources are valuable. Is it a peer-reviewed, data-driven, meta-analysis, or some assistant professor saying something inflammatory in a letter to the editor? Real world case studies > hypothetical talk. For ethical/philosophical sources, it doesn’t all have to be empirical. In fact, it shouldn’t. Even then, appeal to authority is still a fallacy. Why do they claim what they claim? Good debaters always ask why.
Social science – have you actually learned a decent bit about this topic, or just some talking points? Can you think about this in a dynamic way (what would happen if . . . ?) Have you really taken the time to understand the international relations, the economics, sociology, psychology, history, or philosophy that informs this discussion? In short, did you learn?
Also, no matter how good of a speaker you are, no matter how thorough your research, no matter how cutting your rebuttals, I’m not voting for a bully. Firm and assertive is fine, but if you compromise the civility of these events, you lose my vote. Period.
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigms
I don’t penalize spreading, but you lose the opportunity to get points for eloquence and communication. Spreading to fit in more important analysis, I don’t mind. Spreading to fit in more filler to pad your weak case – you’re making my hand cramp for nothing. Better to make one point well than five poorly. If you can do five well, be my guest. It is your responsibility to make yourself understood. Please signpost and emphasize taglines.
I don’t have one argument that I absolutely penalize. I’m open to anything and enjoy seeing unconventional approaches. However, as I said, I value YOUR education. Making an important point about restorative justice is better for your brain and your future than making a meta-debate point no one outside our activity would understand.
Should you focus on Value-Criterion framework or Contentions and Impacts? Depends on the topic and round. Plea bargaining? You both value justice. Who achieves it? If it is one of the myriad liberty vs. safety issues, it’s ALL about the value & criterion framework. Don’t compare constitutional rights with “According to Office of Management and Budget . . . .” That’s apples to oranges.
Congress Paradigms
I want to see some deeper arguments than your uncle’s ramblings on Facebook, something that is based on evidence, not partisanship.
Every speech should bring up something new about the bill. Either bring up a new point or forward what has been said by rebutting others. If you took a speech from someone else who had an original point just to restate what others have said, you have actively made the chamber a worse place.
Know your economic principles. Talk to me about supply and demand, unintended consequences, social mobility. Don’t just quote figures if you don’t understand them.
I also want to see real foreign policy analysis, not just “things are bad here – someone should do something!” Tell me why this intervention will or won’t work.
The more long-term your arguments, the better.
In terms of parliamentary procedure, I want to see a smooth chamber that prioritizes civility and in-depth discussion. Don’t trample on anyone to get in another speech or question. It will not win you any points in my book. If you want to suspend the rules, etc, follow proper parliamentary procedure, not just handshake agreements.
I like P.O.’s who anticipate the pitfalls they have seen in other chambers and take steps to prevent them. I also respect your right and privilege to address the chamber on the nature of the conversation.
Public Forum Paradigms
PF isn't policy. It was created specifically for lay judges. I can flow spreading well enough to judge, and I can follow technical jargon, but in PF, that won't win you any points. More than any other event, I reward rhetoric and persuasion. Especially in the final speeches, don't feel like you have to go point by point down the flow. Step back, tell me the main issues.
I like to see CX that creates real clash. Don't be afraid of confrontation, but don't turn it into a rebuttal. I want to see in CX where the real clash is.