Robert Coven ParadigmLast changed 11/14 1:29P EDT
To Whom It May Concern--
I am a former debater (from the “Golden Age” of debate) who delved into all styles of Speech and Debate, including but not limited to:
In evaluating rounds, I prefer arguments that are coherent and well-articulated. I will NOT entertain spreading, will not join your email chain, nor will I vote on arguments that are irrelevant and/or not explained.
Namely, I will not credit straw-manned or caricatured arguments. Don’t read arguments that you don’t understand or can’t explain in layman’s terms. If you can thoroughly explain the theories of Kant, Lacan, etc. well and their implications IN A 6 MINUTE SPEECH WITHOUT SPREADING, more power to you. However, be warned that my threshold for explanation is very high, regardless of how complicated the argument is. I’m willing to bet that if you can explain these philosophies in 6 minutes, you probably just don’t understand it. Keep in mind that most actual philosophers would spin in their graves over the incoherence present in most of these “phil” debates.
I will not evaluate ahistorical claims, even if they are “dropped” by your opponent.
As for argument preferences, anything goes. Plans, moral skepticism, theory, kritiks, or whatever newfangled arguments kids these days like to read. I will vote on anything as long as it has a warrant, a clear explanation, and weighing. You don’t have to be topical, but like any argument, I will vote on topicality if the issue is won.
Don’t leave it to me to weigh your arguments.
Speaker points: I will dock you for ad hominems, poor explanations, spreading, and more!
I will reward word economy, eloquence, wit, and argument innovation.
I do not disclose during the round.
Above all, treat your opponents and judges with respect.
Good luck :)