Last changed on
Mon February 26, 2024 at 4:44 AM EDT
Philosophy Overview: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation supported by evidence and reasoning. I value debaters who engage respectfully with their opponents and the topic, showing a deep understanding of the issues at hand. Speaking with speed is fine, but make sure your points are clear and understandable.
Framework: debaters should establish a clear value criterion and framework that logically supports their case. They should use this framework to guide their arguments and demonstrate how their case upholds the value criterion better than their opponent's.
Contentions: Debaters should present well-structured contentions that are supported by evidence and reasoning. I value depth over breadth, so I prefer to see fewer, more developed arguments rather than a large number of shallow ones.
Rebuttal: In rebuttals, debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence. I value responsive arguments that adapt to the opponent's case rather than pre-scripted responses.
Cross-Examination: Cross-examination should be used to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses in the opponent's case. I value respectful and productive cross-examinations that focus on substance rather than trying to score points.
Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who can communicate their arguments effectively and engage with the audience.
Final Thoughts: Overall, I am looking for debaters who can think critically, communicate clearly, and engage with the topic and their opponents in a meaningful way.