As an alum of the NSDA (2008), and a true Lincoln-Douglas debater who's competed at Nationals, I value excellent logic, respect, structure, and philosophy in debate. I flow every round old-school style and am able to handle spreading. If you see me stop writing, it's because you're going too fast and need to focus on being a persuasive public speaker as well as an amazing debater. I love debate, and will be enjoying every minute of your argumentation, rebuttal, and cross-examination, so know that I respect the work debaters put in ahead of time to prepare, and the nerve it takes to do this event.

I'll be flowing arguments the way you present them. I'll carry arguments across when you ask me to, and I won't flow it if you don't say it. Values are a big deal to me, so I'm always hoping they feature prominently in final arguments. This is the defining feature of LD debate, and I believe talking about values ought to be a bigger part of how we interact with each other as humans.

Concept Explanation

CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY: CREI is an acronym that stands for claim, reasoning, evidence, and impact. The claim should tell the judge what you are arguing. The reasoning should show why your claim is true in your own words. The evidence should show why your claim is true using the words of another. The impact should tell the judge why your argument matters.

RIOT MEHTOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.

THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY: Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”

VOTER ISSUES: Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.

WORLD COMPARISON: World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.

IMPACT CALCULUS: Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.

CLASH: Clash illustrates to the judge where each side differs from the other. If both sides have different arguments, but two deal with healthcare in some fashion, one of the clashes for that debate would be “healthcare.”

Lincoln Douglas

Judging Criterion:

I primarily judge on how the debaters engage with the values presented because LD boils down to the values. Focusing on the values requires great LD debaters to rely on mostly rhetoric, philosophy, theory, and history to support their arguments. Using studies and other academic journal works would prove insufficient in LD when they stand alone because the findings only serve to illustrate debaters’ reasoning. Because debaters’ main reliance comes from their own reasoning, they should maintain a conversational pace when speaking.

The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate. For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course. To communicate their constructive arguments clearly, debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).

During cross-examination, debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however, please do not only ask yes/no questions, give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are overexplaining an answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore, questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off. The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions, you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.” You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.

During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method, debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY (explanation above). For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead, debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.

Finally, debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech. Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead, strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round. The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES, WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS (explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.

During all these speeches, debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore, the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round. Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose. These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Values – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Impacts – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

Public Forum

Judging Criterion:

The primary quality I look for in a public forum is great teamwork and support. One of the primary aspects of PF is learning how to deliver a cohesive argument with another person. If PF debaters don’t acquire this skill, the whole educational experience in PF becomes lost. The secondary qualities I look for in a great PF team are accomplishing the goal of each section of the debate and using proper argumentation strategies.

The easiest way to show great teamwork in PF debate is to watch how members of the same party support each other in the British parliament. When party members representing the same party give a great speech in parliament, their fellow party members will knock or smack the table to applaud their efforts. Using this same model, I encourage all PF debaters to knock or smack the table loud enough for me to hear to demonstrate public support for their partner. Some judges may not like the noise though, so for other judges, I suggest nodding your head instead.

The more difficult way to illustrate teamwork in PF debate is to make sure you and your partner are on the same page when speaking. I cannot tell you how many times PF partners have contradicted each other in later speeches all because they were not on the same page. Therefore, PF debaters need to make sure all the arguments they make are cohesive. The best way to maintain cohesive arguments is to take notes on what your partner said during their speech(es). If you tune out your partner’s speeches, contradictions become more likely because you cannot remember what your partner said.

Now, let’s move on to discussing how to accomplish the goal of each speech. Constructive speeches carry a lot of weight because the constructive speech introduces your side’s arguments. During this time, the first speakers should solely focus on introducing their main arguments and not refuting or producing counterarguments against their opponents.

I know crossfire comes next, but I’ll get into it later because it deserves its own section at the end. For now, let’s move on to the rebuttal speeches. The rebuttal speech is the time when one of my pet peeves for PF gets triggered. Sometimes the second speaker for either side will start introducing completely new arguments. You should NOT introduce new arguments in the rebuttal speech. What you should do for the rebuttal speech is refute the opposing side's arguments, and the team B second speakers should defend their side. This is one of the speeches other than the final focus where you can put into practice your table knocking and smacking skills.

The summary speech is the trickiest speech to understand for a PF novice. Though this speech is titled “summary speech,” the speech itself should not just summarize everything that both sides have said during the debate. Instead, the summary speech should boil down the debate to the main CLASHES (explanation above). Identifying the clashes will help your partner with the final focus speech as well because identifying the clashes sets up and outline for what the final speech from your team will cover.

Between the summary speech and final focus speech, a PF team can show off just how well they work together. The final focus is not meant to rehash any old arguments or continue your side’s refutations. The final focus speech needs to tell the judge why your team won the round based on the identified clashes. The best way to demonstrate how your team won is by identifying how your team’s side either solves or has a greater weight on each of the clashes using IMPACT CALCULUS.

The last section of the PF format I will explain is the crossfire. Teams should share the crossfire time as equally as they can, so each person has the chance to ask and answer questions. If the teams do not share the crossfire time equally, it will appear as if one team is badgering the other or one team will appear less competent. For the first crossfire, the questions should focus on gathering answers your partner can use during the rebuttal speech. These questions should indict one of three elements of your opponents’ arguments: logical reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. The second crossfire should focus on figuring out where both sides differ so the debater giving the summary speech has an easier time identifying the clashes. The grand crossfire needs to focus on asking questions that get your opponents to concede to your identified clashes. Questions would include challenging the other team’s chosen clashes by making them admit that their clashes do not relate to the topic or are too narrow in scope for the topic.

Now, I’ll briefly explain my preferred method of argumentation. Every argument a debater makes should follow the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY (explanation above) or a similar strategy. For this format, your support should come from reasoning, studies, theory, and history. Using philosophy is not worth it in this format, because there is not enough time to cover the depth of the principles. As for speaking rate, debaters should use conversational or slightly faster to ensure the judge understands their arguments. For refutation, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above) and the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY. These are the methods you can use to become a great PF team.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Impacts – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Clashes – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.