Email: william.bacdayan@gmail.com **Put me on the chain please** Here are a few things about me that might be helpful.

1. Generally, tech>truth

If an argument is blatantly offensive or misconstrued, I won't vote for it. Don't bring in anything new in second summary or onward. Please extend case warrants in the second half. Front line in second rebuttal.

2. Logic analytics good

I like to see debaters use their brains once in a while. I'll take analytics as long as it makes sense but don't rely solely on them in rebuttal, please.

3. Prog

Really have to sell a violation for me to vote for theory. Please no K's. Not well-versed on prog so bear with me.

4. Respect

Try to be as respectful as possible. I understand everyone wants to make a point in CX, but please don't start yelling at each other.

5. Please weigh

If you don't tell me why you're argument matters more than your opponents, I can't vote on it. Weigh, I beg you.

Best of luck, and have some fun.

Clear and articulate speeches

Please be respectful and courteous

I am a traditional judge.

Please introduce yourself clearly.

I don't flow speed. Speaking clearly is a great way to earn my ballot. I like structured presentation with lesser words, well separated arguments that are punctuated with sufficient silent spacing rather than excessive content being squeezed into the allotted time to articulate your position.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I am very much a lay judge. This is my first tournament judging, so I don't know much about the topic. I did not do debate in high school, so please refrain from using debate jargon. Please speak slowly, and write your ballot for me in the last two speeches. Please give me voting issues, and make sure to condense the debate into your 1-2 best arguments. I am not a flow judge, but I will take notes. Make cross fire entertaining. Ill give you more speaker points if you can use any Thanos quotes or dark knight quotes.

LD: I'm a pretty traditional judge. I like philosophy and will vote on clash first (both framework and the flow), then I'll look to see that arguments were responded to, but I care a lot more about winning the most important arguments than the most arguments. I do not want to hear theory or spreading. I'm a history teacher and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about.

Policy: I come from the LD/PF/Parli/Speech world, so I would say I’m going to be as Trad as possible. Because of that, I’m probably going to be a little biased against K AFFs, but I’ll listen to anything with an open mind and I’ll pick whose policies are still standing at the end of the round. I will flow and I will listen.

PFD: Don't do policy. I don't really like statistical debates and I'll generally ignore any argument that you say will lead to the end of the human race or kill millions of people. Just win the round by arguing the resolution. I'm a history teacher, and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about. I'm also an economics teacher, so if you're going to run any kind of economic argument, make sure you know what you're talking about.

pelder@vt.edu

Public Forum

I debated at Central Catholic for 4 years all in PF. I wasn't that good but I have enough experience that you can consider me a good judge. Im gonna flow the round so cover your bases. Try to write your ballot for me. Basically to win you need to give me clean link extensions and weighing in summary and ff. For summary and ff pick 1-2 of your best arguments and go for them to win the round. Im much more likely to pick you up if your speeches at the end are well organized and keep it simple. The rest of this is things I don't like but do whatever you want and ill judge it.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THE DEBATE ABOUT QUANTIFICATION OF NUMBERS. My philosophy is probability and scope >magnitude, so make of that what you will. If you give me a number, the number has to be two things. A.) It needs a link to not only the event causing the number, but a link to the number via the event. Basically tell me how the event in question causes your number. B.) It has to be weighed against your opponents impact.

Evidence Drops- It does not matter if the other team drops a piece of evidence you read if you don't tell me why it matters. I.e. what does dropping that specific piece of evidence do to your opponents case/argument.

Im not listening to cross, if you bring up something important bring it up in your speech or literally tell me to listen during cross. That goes for your speeches too. If I look bored its because I am. Literally tell me to listen or tell me hey you're gonna want to write this down before you say something really important if I look bored.

With that being said, please make the round entertaining. Be interesting, make jokes, have fun with it. If you make me laugh I guarantee ill give you 30 speaks.

Lastly, be nice to your opponents. I don't want to listen to a screaming match. If you're being rude to your opponents promise you Ill find a way to drop you.

After the round, please feel free you or your coaches to email me about the round pelder@vt.edu

If you have any questions please let me know!

LD

Spend less time on framework / value criterion. I don't understand it so go more off of case.

POLICY

If you have the opportunity to, please strike me. The only level of policy experience I have is watching teammates of mine compete. Please if we’re online do not spread, it’s gonna be hard enough for me to understand what’s going on so don’t make it harder. At the end of the day just make it clear why you think you won. No theory, etc I’ll probably drop you. If you guys do an email chain add me pelder@vt.edu

I am a parent judge. I flow the cases and look for rigorous, well-linked arguments. If you argue that x leads to y, the mechanism by which that happens should at least be addressed - no magic wands. I appreciate well-developed cases, but will score skilled debate over the quality of the case. Obviously it pays to have both.

I prefer a simple, well-crafted case to spreading and surgical arguments to shotgun rebuttals.

Debated LD for 4 years, understand of and policy but be light on policy esoterics.

I’m tech over truth, but be reasonable

if you do not have a good warrant for your philosophy you are a glass cannon.

the philosophy Debate is how the round is to be valued, it can be the most or least important debate, you decide.

I like larp, but if you run morality util without substantiation you’re playing a dangerous game.

I love complex philosophy

if you run a k, it better have a good link and solvency.

good with speed, but speak the king’s English.

in the end I’m open to anything, Debate is just that, to be open minded and promote critical thinking on all perspectives, do what you know to yourself is right because in the end all that matters is that.

C’est La Vie… C’est La Guerre

 

I am a lay judge. I prefer for the debaters to talk slow and emphasize key points so I can understand better. Otherwise everything will be fine for me.

I admire respectful communication; I appreciate style of delivery just as much as content; I don't prefer rapid fire facts prioritized over evidence of listening skills and active listening.

I debated PF at North Allegheny and I try not to have a specific judging style but I do tend to be more of a flow judge.

For the email chain: Likhithai2003@gmail.com

General information:

• Be respectful - it shows a lot about you as a debater
• DO NOT SPREAD please
• I keep track of time - I allow a 10-15 second overtime. After that, I'll tell you to sit down.
• Crossfire is my favorite part - Be assertive
• If you don't extend something, no matter how strong of a point/evidence it is, I drop it
• If you do extend something, no matter how stupid or false it is, and your opponents don't ever respond to it, I will flow it through
• Remember: no new responses in FF
• Overall, just be confident and know your case. Even if don't know anything, fake it till you make it.
• I value debaters who can be respectful and get their points across in an assertive way, so do with that what you want.
• Also, if you guys reach out via email after the round, I can go in to as much detail as you guys want to discuss on the round

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Congress

I'm a relatively traditional judge. Remember that you are giving a speech and not reading an expository essay, so state clearly why you support or oppose the legislation on the table. I will judge substance primarily, but style does matter in the US Congress and, by extension, in a simulated one. The evidence you present should be valid and timely in nature as well as sourced appropriately. Most sources contain bias of some sort, but avoid citing McDonalds when you're arguing about the health benefits of cheeseburgers. Argue the substance and merits of the bill rather than technicalities, for instance an imprecise statistic in a bill is not a primary cause for negation. Spreading during a congressional debate is never effective. Both practical and moral/ethical arguments are appropriate.

After the initial speeches lay out arguments for and against the bill, effective speakers should make an effort to reference other speakers and reject or support their arguments in addition to bringing up new or more compelling ones where the opportunity exists. Prepared speeches are appropriate but the best speakers will be able to aggregate previous conversations and address them with their time on the floor. A speech with some verbal miscues that is relevant to the conversation happening in the session is better than a perfectly delivered canned speech prepared fully in advance. Questioning can be direct and even combative at times, but both questioner and respondent should seek to engage on substantive issues and, of course, with appropriate decorum.

The most effective congressional speakers are able to control the primary arguments being debated on the floor throughout the session. A representative who controls the message even when they are not speaking will receive additional consideration.

Please speak loudly and clearly. A moderate pace is fine, but speed through it, and you'll lose me. I appreciate solid sources and statistics, especially in debate. Speech topics can hit an emotional chord, but don't be afraid to use humor.

I debated for 4 years at Pittsburgh Allderdice HS. I'm now a first-year at Northwestern University studying Math and Jewish Studies. I use he/him pronouns.

email for chains: jonahrosenberg2004@gmail.com

TLDR

Flow judge but not techy. Weighing is important and I like fun weighing too. Second rebuttal should frontline about half the time and then respond to opps. Rebuttal defense is sticky. ALSO, This should really go without saying but any sort of language that is misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. will get you an instant L20 and I will report you to the people running the tournament.

Signposting

I like it. It's useful for my flows. If you don't do it I'll probably lose a bunch of what you say because I'll spend longer than I should have to going down my flow (which is usually pretty extensive when I judge) looking for what you're responding to.

Cross

This is a fun time to get good speaks if I like what you do. Obviously I don't vote on it but I do feel I value it more than other judges. If your opp says something stupid, you should bring it up in a speech and make fun of them for it. Just kidding, don't do that, but cross is important. GCX can be skipped but sometimes it's fun to see who can get the most aggressive on a screen.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal should just go straight down the case and then weigh if you want. Also if you have really good framework that goes really counter to what your opps have, bring that up. Me and my partner liked framework and so I judge good framework very generously. People now really hate card dumping, and while I don't think it's very fun, I acknowledge it can sometimes be effective, so I'm not going to doc you anything because of it. I already said this, but second rebuttal should be about 50/50 on your case and then your opps. Rebuttal defense is sticky! You can backline NUs and DLs into FF, but Turns and any offensive comp weighing needs to be brought up in summary otherwise don't bother in FF.

Summary

First summary should probably extend turns, and then frontline what they're going for. Second summary can never bring up new evidence I'll drop it instantly. With that said though, they can make new implications on evidence that has already been given. I know that's a hot take these days with people wanting to consolidate summary more and more, but I don't think it's actually bad for discourse because the other side could have responded to the card to preempt the implication from being made. Second summary does pretty much the same as the first in my opinion, but I think it's fun when summary speeches are creative.

FF

Definitely slow down during FF as you're done bringing in new things and usually reiterating what you've liked throughout the round. Usually at this point I already have a winner, but in close rounds it can definitely be a real deciding factor in the winner.

Voting

I will always disclose after the round as long as the competition lets me. I think debate is educational before everything else and if I can't give you my feedback, then what's really the point?

Speed

Spreading I feel is one of those things that both sides should agree to pre round. I can flow as fast as it gets, but I understand not everyone can. If you plan on spreading, ask everyone before the round and make sure I know that you asked and then we'll do it. If you don't ask I'll probably drop speaks a lot.

Disclosure (as in disclosing on the wiki)

Disclosing is stupid. Debate is educational and the best way to educate yourself is to not know everything your opp is going to say before they say it. If you're not thinking on your feet, what's the point? If you run disclosure theory, you're wasting your time.

Speaks

Speaks are stupid, but also fun. I am pretty generous. If you get below 27ish you probs did something wrong. I think analogies are pretty cool and if you make good ones in like summary or something I'll send you some love in the speaks. I also think really weird link chains are fun too. If you have contentions with like nuclear war impacts or something, run them. You'll make everyone laugh and that's fun.

Postrounding

Not only do I not mind, I highly encourage it. It holds me accountable for my decision and can teach me more as a new judge. I hate it when judges give very little RFD and I also hate typing it up so I'd prefer to give it all right there post round so just fire away all your questions there.

Theory

No

Ks

No

All other progressive args

No

Cameras

Please have them on for online tournaments. There's no option to put a black screen over your face at in person tournaments so why turn them off? I like to see who I'm judging. With that said though, dress as casually as you want, idrc.

Other things

Please please have fun with your rounds. We stress too much about tournaments but don't realize how trivial they truly they are. Follow me on insta @jonahrosenberg_

Have fun guys

I am a traditional judge who prefers a more conversational style, so "spread" at your own risk. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you. Try to avoid getting lost in debate jargon, and I strongly prefer traditional LD debate to “K’s” and “theory” arguments. I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round.

Regardless of speech or debate, all competitors should emulate good sportsmanship and be respectful during the competition. Examples of what this means:

> Paying attention while your opponent/competitor is presenting. (NOT goofing off on your phone or talking with a friend in the room).

> Being respectful and courteous, whether after a presentation or during debate cross-fires.

Debate Event Specific: Clear articulated and respectful debates. The pace of speaking should not be so rapid that the judge cannot clearly discern arguments being made. Additionally, while debate clashing is key, debate is still an exercise of public speaking, so be mindful of presentation skills.

I’m a traditional judge.

I have several years of global experience working with companies of international repute manufacturing capital equipment sold in energy space (both fossil (Oil and Gas) and renewables (Nuclear, Solar, Bio Fuels, etc..)), Water, Waste Water and General Industry.

I’m looking forward to hearing your perspectives and see you debate.

General:
ESL - DO NOT SPREAD
NO PROG
Truth > Tech
Keep Calm
Speak Loud And Clear
Maintain Proper Body Language
Keep The Topic On Track
Respect your Opponents

I am a lay judge and will vote based on who explains their argument most clearly and weighs the best. DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Being respectful and clear are my main priorities. Below is more event-specific information written for more experienced debaters, but if you follow my general preferences, you will not need the information below.

PF -

Second Speakers: If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Start weighing as early as possible, preferably during rebuttals. This is not needed but much appreciated so I can know what your main points are. I only know trad debate, so please do not venture into the depths of prog. If you do begin making Ks or T shells, make sure the explanation is impeccable, similar to explaining to a child. Do not bring up new responses in FF unless it is pointing out that your opponent had some type of rule infraction, like bringing up new responses.

First Speakers:
NO NEW RESPONSES IN THE SECOND SUMMARY. I will drop your team for new responses in the second summary. If you do not weigh in summary, then I have nothing to vote off of in your FF, so this is a necessity. If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Once again, do not make prog arguments because I am only a trad lay judge. No spreading, and keep yourself organized.

Policy -

Do not spread, and make sure to disclose your cases at least 10 minutes before the round begins to give me ample time to read and understand your case. No trix, and don’t use any overly complex K or T arguments. If you make the argument, make sure you explain it like you are explaining it to a baby because I have no experience in judging policy.

LD -

I have no experience with LD judging and will need every argument to be very clearly explained. Do not use niche or hard-to-understand frameworks because I will not be able to follow their complexities. I will not be able to follow the circuit LD spreading even if their arguments are disclosed. If this tournament allows, STRIKE ME FOR LD

Am updating this for NSDA Districts March 2024; hopefully by mentioning that fact it will force me to keep this updated fairly regularly J

Background/ experience, overall/this year: I have extensive experience as a former competitor, coach, and judge over a time period of like 4 decades or so :) I am comfortable judging in all formats, Policy. L-D, Public Forum, etc. Have judged hundreds of rounds over those years, frequencies vary year by year, but a decent amount these past several years so I am not “rusty.” (More on that in a second here). Judged and coached mostly at the high school but also a bit in college; much more in Policy and L-D than P-F but not unfamiliar with that format. The full gamut from state champions, national champions , TOC qualifiers all the way down to “junior high pre-novice,” the full gamut.

This year I have judged a very few LD and PF rounds, can count on one hand, but have not judged any Policy rounds. I have kept myself up with the topic, though, so I’m not completely uninformed; still, consider that especially with respect to the next section.

One thing which I would argue follows necessarily from the above, but which I ought to make explicit—given the above, I will not participate in, and do not believe it to be acceptable, the “flash-drive-sharing WITH THE JUDGE” of speeches/evidence during the round. It’s okay with the other team; I will ask for ev. after the round if I need to clarify any specific question that I have about it, but, I will not engage in that practice. FYI fwiw and the entire “Online” thing over the past several years has made things very challenging; now that we're largely out of that, the "regular rules" of in-person, all-in-the-same-room debating should apply.

For the rest of this, maybe this very brief one-paragraph “intro” will be all you need to know. In a conversation with a very-experienced (college) debate coach and judge, former debater and all that, he said something that I ought to start out with, and maybe by saying this I can spare the rest of all of this, or you can spare the reading of it. He said, “Most judges are ‘normal scientists’.” I guess that most are, many debaters (but maybe not as many debaters as judges!!!) are as well, and I guess that I am too, “writ large” admittedly. Still, I have spent a lot of time with those who arenot, there are plenty of them out there even if that’s only a result of the “law of large numbers,” I believe that sometimes they bring up points which need to be addressed, and, for those who would like to know exactly where I stand on those issues and how and where I draw the borders of “normal science,” well, you can read the rest of this. Or just stop here, or read it selectively, any way is fine with me. People always tell me when I start writing like this, though, “You should write a book,” and some of these topics do need book-length treatment, so maybe I should do that, and maybe this is a start.

Here goes

Judging style, ”in round” preferences/”rules.” In any debate, I hold that debaters have to “get the arguments for that round into that round.” Falling generally under the broad category of tabula rasa, that means I will listen to “anything” BUT that “anything” has to recognizably be presented as an argument in that particular round. Note that I mentioned above that I haven’t judged any Policy rounds this season. At this late point in the season, there are likely tons of things that “everyone”/most everyone might take for granted. I will still hold that that needs to be brought, formally, into that particular ground. To use examples from this year's Policy resolution, but they can be cross-applied to all forms of debate: "Projected dates of Social Security 'insolvency'?" Get that evidence into this round!!!! "Poverty level, regional variations thereof?" Get that evidence into this round!!!!! —intothis round!!!!! I would say the same thing if I’d judged 65 rounds on this year’s topic, the fact that I haven’t only underscores what I just said above. People who look at my flows after rounds sometimes see them as almost stenographic records of the rounds; I am glad that people can look at them and say that. Still, at the beginning of each and every round, those flows are blank sheets of paper, everything that gets written on to them is/was brought up in that round. If you want me to vote on it, get it into the round!!!!

“Paradigm” properly understood and more fully discussed, and some other important terms and concepts: I am comfortable with most paradigms properly understood. I ought to emphasize the “properly understood” there, and will do so in a second, but, most debates fall naturally into, and can be fully debated and judged within, one or even several of the major paradigms. Debating exactly which one, a/k/a a “Theory Debate,” is generally unwise, as most debates (most “legitimate” debates!!!) tend to fall naturally into a given paradigm, a “best fit” of sorts, so to try to argue these is generally unwise (caveat above was/is the word “legitimate” and more on that in a bit); generally, there’s a way that the arguments have been put forth that “makes enough sense that it ought to be followed through with.” [ …-> Define the word “gene” in genetics or medicine—“it depends but it fits where and how you’re using it”]

While theory debates seem to have gotten their starts in Policy, it seems like they're creeping into other forms of debate. I am not a fan of that, as they haven't gone well in Policy, but, to weigh in on one of what I guess are several or even many that may be circulating in LD (or BQ, possibly), and just one of what may be many, I would basically concur with a notion that an LD resolution (all resolutions, I would say) is "propositional." There are many discussions about that, as I see online if not in actual rounds; note that that does not necessarily impose the ridiculous burdens which many have taken that to mean, but, basically, if push comes to shove, I will agree with that notion.

Terms/concepts: The above does need to be unpacked in certain important places, and doing so fully would require a book-length exposition. (Gee, really??!!! In debate theory??!!!!) Taking one term above, and another “concept,” and addressing those two here, and the other “elephant in the room” in a separate section below: Term--“Legitimate” (or “legitimate debate/ legitimate argument”)—here I would mean the old-fashioned “blue socks” type of argument, and while I am guessing that those are out of fashion (yay!!!!!) I will still mention that here, if only to give you a sense of what I mean by “legitimate”—that is, “germane” or “non-non sequiturs.” Into this I would also add the old (hopefully old!!!!) tactic (if it even rises to that!!!) of a 1NC (or even 1AC!) reading like an Aesop’s Fable then unpacking it into (pseudo) Voting Issues in their later speeches. Absent said unpacking being a necessary interpretation, I would not consider that to be “legitimate.” So, those are extreme, but, well, just to get these out there. (I would be in very high spirits if many current debaters or even judges or even coaches had no idea what I was talking about there!!!!)

Back to “Paradigms,” Part Two: I will say something similar—albeit not that far out!!!—about “paradigms,” properly understood. A “paradigm” is something that can be used as a backdrop for a round to be judged/decided, I guess that s fairly well known but doesn’t hurt to make that explicit. (“You know, ’paradigm’ was a pretty good word in the English language until I got hold of it!!!!”—Thomas Kuhn). As such—as such—some things that are sometimes considered “paradigms” are actually not. “Tabula Rasa,” still listed on some JQPs as a “paradigm,” is not—it just “indicates what will get onto a judge’s flow” figuratively or literally speaking. Similarly, I’ve seen still listed on a JQP “recently” “Games Playing”—may do a good job of describing the activity as a whole, but, there is no way to use that to pick a winner or loser and/or make a decision whatever way one wants to say that!!! (Fairly easy to figure out why, if you think about it). So, again, circling back to where I started “way back when” :) --just debate a round in a/the paradigm into which it seems to be falling, the odds of a round becoming a truly apples and oranges issue is virtually nil as one side will almost certainly say something (even if they didn’t mean to!!!) that could subsume their arguments into the other side’s paradigm.

Now on to the elephant in the room. You could see this coming as some of the above cannot be fully unpacked without it (…some of the above, anyway!!!!!...)

Critical arguments/ Kritiks/critiques etc. Of course, could not not get to these !!!!!

Likely—or at least hopefully—one could see some points that I’d raised in the above sections as already starting to address some of this. Hopefully, if one understands these arguments, which anecdotally I have observed is …is …is --not all that common in the debate community

Truly this requires a book-length exposition, and this isn’t the right place for that. So, just a few “Generalities” here, “generalities” which would stand up to further scrutiny but which can’t be fully covered here:

--At their best, critiques/Ks/ critical arguments can be said to be “debate at its best, the true summit of this activity.” At their worst, they call into serious question whether this activity ought to be allowed to continue. The difference is that great; the facts of the matter have it where most of the time it’s the latter that occurs, not the former. Part of this is (probably) because…

--“Your idea is so far off that it is not even wrong!!!” Here that proverbial appellation is often apt. Every indication is that most debaters don’t understand these arguments, certainly these arguments properly understood. Many debaters (seem to) think that they do, but (again anecdotally, albeit a significant anecdotal amount thereof) from: the way(s) that these arguments are run in rounds; the places they are put into rounds and the ways that they get extended; after-round confabs that involve “Comments and RFD” discussions with debaters and coaches; plus “debate-tournament-situated” but non-directly round-related conversations with coaches, judges, and debaters –I get the very real—and very disconcerting—sense that most people in the debate community do not really have the most basic understanding of these types of arguments, properly understood. Not good, especially as this all has been perpetuated for a very long time…

--..a silver lining in this very dark cloud is that precisely because (most) debaters do not know (seem to not know) what they are talking about when it comes to critiques/Ks/ critical arguments, they “fail” (miserably!) in what they are attempting to do, fail so miserably that they sometimes (oftentimes!) collapse into other types of ("normal science") debate arguments, and, thus, can become issues in the round/voters in those ways, not in the ways that they were initially intended, but, still, “dysfunctionally” [in its literal meaning!] debatable in a given round. A "felix culpa" of sorts. Almost certainly not as effective as if the team had run other arguments instead of their pseudo-Ks!!!! Still, in a given round, they might (might!) “work,” inelegantly that that might be. So, my advice (and more on this in a second!!!) is, “Don’t run them, but if you do, just try to apply them to the arguments that’re in the round as it progresses and ‘monkey at a typewriter who knows some basic spelling and grammar rules of said-typewriter’s language’ you might crank out a meaningful argument or three.” (Again, more in a second here)

Affirmatives? Well, given the above, maybe this will make sense!!! “Critical cases?” “Sure!!!! As long as they’re topical!!!!!” (!!!????) “As long as what you’re saying can map on to the resolution in an affirmative sense,” I’m okay!!!!! [As part of what I was getting at earlier w.r.t. “understanding,” one of the ways to tell if someone understands something (as opposed to just “regurgitating” it) is “if they know it when they see it.” What I just said above is a perfect—THE perfect!!!- example of something in debate theory, it’d be a great test to use to see if people know what they’re talking about or just “parroting.”]

Given what I said above, I’ll say the following, and that serves as a good segue into my next (and final!!!!) major point here. Given what seems to be the case about critiques/Ks/critical arguments in the debate community, I believe that pedagogically “we”/the debate community ought to say/do two things with regard to them, with regard to the way it/”we” engage the students/competitors regarding them. (Well, okay, “Three” things, but the first one is “a priori” and that is “stop voting for them whenever possible and, most certainly, whether win or lose don’t give them 28.5 speaker points in those rounds!!!!”) One, I would say that if the debate community is going to continue to use these types of arguments and teach them to new and future debaters, it is requisite on the debate community to mention that “these ideas in the forms we are presenting them to you are ‘not correct,’ this is not really what So-and-So was really saying, the ways that these arguments get used in debate rounds are inappropriate 98 times out of 100, so before we go any further we need to add that in.” Tell the debaters that “what we are telling you sounds really cool and erudite and esoteric but it is not correct!!!! “ I believe that is requisite, and is probably (probably!!!) most important of all, but also I would add this one as well. Two, “Fun as they are, big-headed as you might get by sounding like you know something about these ideas, in almost all cases there are better arguments to run in given rounds, that most cases have non-critical arguments that are better than these (pseudo-) critical ones.” SO, even if these, by happy accident, somehow get “shoehorned” in, even if you can fit square pegs into round holes, you are better off trying other approaches, “Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments “ (“GOFDA “???) This then seems like a good place to segue into that. Now I'll get to my last and final major point (“and there was much rejoicing!!!”)...

“Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments” (“GOFDA”?) Hey, after all this, a long-overdue return to the point I made WAY above, namely, “normal science.” You know, there’s nothing wrong with actually discussing issues that pertain in some meaningful way to US arms sales abroad; to how those arms sales affect issues of war and peace / conflict and avoidance / population welfare or detriment; how we can engage in thought experiments and forecasts about how various proposals would/could/reasonably might affect those aforementioned matters; and “work” that it involves discussing all of the above using expert evidence and rational analysis. Wow, what a concept!!!!! Pardon the tone here and Yes most debaters are or can be “normal scientists” and maybe that gets boring, maybe you’d like to try other approaches just for kicks or maybe it’s just too much work, BUT, well, that’s what this activity does or can do “well” and there’s nothing wrong with that!!!! When done well, there is SO MUCH benefit to that that it’s hard to describe, explain. Don’t know if I even want to get started but various research that has indicated (old research!!! Not as sure this would hold true today!!!) that the knowledge and understanding of a topic that one gains from debating a HS policy debate topic for a season is roughly equivalent to writing a Master’s thesis on that topic (!!!!!!); that one can nerd out and watch a C-Span program with various past and present Undersecretaries of State or Defense or Ambassadors or Fellows at think tanks and sometimes see and hear that same level of analysis in a high school debate round (!!!!!)—what is wrong with that???!!???!!!!! So, if you are preparing arguments, I would say for any tournament but certainly for a season-ending one, but also certainly for me—“GOFDA”

Yes, each one of the above really needs book-length treatment, and maybe sometime I will give them that. For now, though, I believe I will just sign out

###