Last changed on
Wed October 16, 2019 at 2:31 PM EDT
This paradigm is continually evolving, so I update it frequently before tournaments. Last update was October 16, 2019.
This sheet has two sections: a short biography and my policy debate paradigm. If you have questions about any of the following, please ask.
Bio:
I have been involved with debate in various capacities since 1983.
My background is primarily in 2 person policy debate (NFL/NDT/CEDA), with 4 years coaching students competing in NFA-LD (policy). I have judged approximately 1 LD value debate, and 2 NPDA debates, all of which happened over 15 years ago.
I competed for Detroit Catholic Central (Redford, Michigan) and Butler University (Indianapolis, Indiana). I coached at Indiana University (NDT/NFA-LD) and Westminster College (NFA-LD).
My most recent experience with debate at the college level was judging for Miami University, mostly when Steve Mancuso coached there (2004-6).
From 2016-18 I was a frequent judge of Public Forum debate on the High School circuit in Michigan.
Besides debating and coaching, between 1992 and 2017 I taught Argumentation and Debate courses at Indiana University, Westminster College, and Wayne State University.
Policy Paradigm:
Left to my own devices, I tend to be a loose policy maker interested in evaluating the risk of doing/supporting the resolution against the risk of not. Any net advantage is enough to vote AFF. But that's just my default setting.
My firm position is that the paradigm I use to evaluate the round is up for debate, and I give a lot of leeway as to what it might end up being. If you want to argue for a paradigm, my preference is that you do it clearly and do it well.
If a paradigm isn't debated, I assume that means the debaters are in agreement about what's happening in the round. In that case, I try to fit with what I see as the paradigm that the debaters adopt. So, in a LD-Policy round where the debaters obviously are working with a fairly standard Stock Issues paradigm, I go with the flow. If both teams want to perform, then go ahead and perform -- I'll sit back and enjoy the show.
Please note that, despite my personal belief that I'm open to performance debates, I usually get struck by performance teams. As a result, I haven't seen a lot, but I have voted for and against performance AFFs and NEGs. I actually like a lot of what the performance turn in debate has done for the activity, although it's not the world that I competed in myself.
I've been known to vote for some pretty weird stuff (I ran some weird stuff, too -- at least what counted as weird in the late 1980s). Exotic is not a problem. Incomprehensible, not so good. I generally gag on completely internally inconsistent and contradictory positions, unless that's somehow what the agreed upon paradigm requires or allows.
There are NO inherently wrong arguments, and debate is where counter-intuitive arguments should be tried and tested. What matters to me is not whether an argument is wrong or right, but if it is made well (or not).
I can handle speed, but keep in mind that it's been a decade since I've sat in the back of the room. If I get lost, the problem isn't the speed -- it's my unfamiliarity with a position, or an acronym, or a buzzword. I'm open to being educated -- but it helps if you clarify a term the first time you use it.
As for the K, I'm fairly well versed in critical theory, having taught it at the MA and PhD level for 15 years. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that means. The chances are that I've read more Foucault, Butler, Derrida, Zizek, Burke, etc., than college debaters have.
Whether T is a voter is up for debate. I will assume that it is a voter if no one contests this.
A dropped argument is conceded, but the quality of the dropped argument is what matters most in the decision calculus. If someone on the AFF literally says "the DA is not unique," but then moves on to the next point and doesn't provide any rationale, evidence, or anything else to support that claim, then there's not a lot there if the NEG drops that "argument." Yes, it was conceded, but it was a blank assertion with no apparent meaning -- so conceding it was meaningless. And it didn't open the door for the next AFF speaker to suddenly provide the rationale or evidence and argue that since uniqueness was conceded that the NEG had no right to new arguments on the position. The addition of rationale makes it a new argument to which the NEG can respond (or can ignore if it's made in the rebuttals -- see the following paragraph).
Unless you can make a persuasive argument otherwise, I will ignore new arguments and drop them from the flow. To me, a new argument is a claim made in a later speech that is not connected to a position argued in a constructive. After the constructives are over, a connection must be made at the first opportunity to address the position. The connection is key: a line of argumentation can, and should, evolve and grow over the course of the debate. "No new arguments in rebuttals" does not mean "you have to repeat yourself in the later speeches." As long as the link is clear and does not seem abusive I will allow it to stand in a rebuttal.
Last point. If most or all of the above makes no sense to you, don't worry about it. It probably made a lot more sense 20 years ago when I developed "my paradigm." At least, I hope it did. Do what you do, and do it well. My job is to evaluate the round, not dictate it. Ask questions before the round and I'll do my best to answer.
Public Forum Paradigm:
Dexter will be the first tournament of this type that I have judged this format, but I do know a bit about the activity.
I expect the debaters to set the pace of the round at a level with which all are reasonably comfortable. If one team is speaking way too fast for the other, then that team should slow down.
I abide by the dictate that the debaters need to address a "lay judge," but the definition of this term is, in my opinion, relative. I (and the other judges present, if applicable) are your audience. You need to adapt to us. I'm not going to try to think like someone else -- whether that's someone who has less or more expertise than I. I will do my best to keep my own preferences from playing a role -- and after being involved in debate for most of the last 35 years, I'm pretty good at this. But I don't personally believe complete objectivity is possible or desirable. I have a perspective. Without that I would not be able to engage you, the ideas, the evidence, or anything else. But I can be convinced by arguments that fall outside of my perspective. If I wasn't open to that, I wouldn't be involved with debate.
Debate is a game. We generally work within certain assumptions about good and bad ideas, but these can be challenged by credible and persuasive arguments. The amount of work you need to do to make a persuasive argument varies depending on how much it goes against common assumptions about something. For example: most would say that causing an increase in nuclear proliferation is a bad idea. But you could challenge this idea with evidence -- and, in this case, there's a lot of credible research and analysis you can cite that makes this case -- and I could be persuaded by that evidence that proliferation is actually good. But since it seems that, on balance, proliferation causes an increased risk of nuclear war, you'd have to have some pretty strong support to challenge this idea. In other words, "counter-intuitive" arguments DO have a place in debate; indeed, testing such radical ideas may be one of the most important things academic debate can do.
I suppose you can advocate a paradigm if you want to, but I really don't expect you to.
I will flow the round, and do expect that the debaters will, in some fashion, do this as well. It's up to you, but if you fail to answer an argument because you didn't make a note of it, that's your problem.
As I see it, this is what argument theorists call "value debate." It asks whether a course of action is a good idea, not whether it should be adopted. That's why the resolution could argue for maintenance of the status quo (which would not be "adopting" a policy, but sticking to the present course). This brings its own "paradigmatic" assumptions, including the idea that whichever team defends the status quo will have presumption. A case needs to be made against doing what is already happening; if it "ain't broke, don't fix it." In most resolutions, the CON will be defending the status quo, as most resolutions call for a different course of action than what's happening now. But it could be the PRO who defends the S.Q. For better or worse, this is something inherent in public forum debate. (By "having presumption" I mean the team who, before the round begins, is winning -- as in "the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.")
But this cannot be the case when the resolution only engages values without connecting them to a policy (as in "competing values" resolutions - like "Resolved: That justice is more important than mercy.") In that case, I'll give the presumption to the CON. That's a fairly arbitrary decision, but I believe that someone has to have presumption or there's no basis for a debate. Since I can see no good way to determine who should have presumption in such a case (and if someone can provide a good rationale for doing it otherwise, I'll happily change), then I'm going with the "AFF started this, so they've got to justify that action by making a case" logic.
The other issue that arises from being value debate: arguments that can only be justified by advocating a plan aren't within the scope of the round. I'll ignore them.
Debating the meaning of a term in the resolution (aka "topicality") only seems relevant if the term could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways and that how it is defined relates to the focus of the resolution. To me, the AFF "right to define" only means that the AFF gets to make the initial statement about how the terms should be interpreted without spending time justifying the use of that definition -- the NEG can challenge that definition in favor of another if they provide good reasoning and/or support. If the AFF definition(s) is/are challenged, the AFF can defend with their own support, or concede the NEG definition. Note: neither the AFF nor the NEG are required (or even expected to) define any of the terms if they so choose.
If you have questions, ask!
