Competitive History: I competed for four years in speech and debate, specializing in congressional debate. I am not new to debate and have a general idea about how the events should function. However, I will not put it past myself to get a “senior moment” when it comes to the individual idiosyncrasies of other events.

General Philosophy

Argumentation:

I have no problem with the usual debate jargon. I am not, however, an expert in all events and want to see clear signposting as a general rule of thumb. Also, I will try to be as objective as possible- #tabularasa- but that does not mean I will take unwarranted arguments on the face. An argument needs a claim in order for me to buy it and THEN I will take it as true.

When warranting your arguments, providing evidence to prove that something happens is not enough to qualify as a “warrant”, you need to construct, to at least a minor degree, some form of narrative storytelling to prove why a phenomenon is occurring for the reasons you provide. However, non-evidenced, properly warranted, arguments are no more legitimate than those that are not warranted and sourced.

For weighing, my philosophy is quite simple: do it. The standard calculus- magnitude, scope etc…- should be used but just throwing out the term does not qualify as weighing.

In terms of arguments that can be qualified as “offensive”/triggering/discriminatory, I will try to be as uninvolved in this as I can. Arguments should not just simply be called “offensive” and thus ignored in the round; the other team/debater has to prove that the argument is offensive. However, since ignorant arguments- by virtue of being ignorant- are quite easy to refute, you should not have a lot of problem doing so. There is a caveat to this, which are arguments that advocate for violence or portray a group as entirely evil and violent. Those kinds of arguments will be ignored.

Finally, this is really just for Congress kids, when establishing an argument as important, you need to explain what it’s like to be a member of the population you are talking about. While I probably know a bit about the topic, I want you to describe why life is so good or so bad for the group as a rationale for action.

Speaking: For PF/LD/CX rounds, speaking is only a detractor if it is impossible to properly discern what you are saying. Otherwise, your speaking- or lack thereof- will just harm efficiency and word economy, which will reflect in my argumentation comments.

Sources: I have no real source preference but there are exceptions. News sources are fine but don’t cite news sources with known bias or an insane amount of editorialization and op-ed writing. I won’t discount the source but an idicit is more digestible when you use these kinds of sources. I also want at least last name, year, publication when citing; you do not need to provide qualifications but they are a bonus if you use them.

Congress Specific

Speaking: I am a real big fan of the whole “role-playing” and your speaking should reflect that. Referencing people as rep./sen. Is not only respectful but is also part of the event. In addition, I really expect that you should have little to no fluency breaks, which I believe is more important than speed. If you have to speak slower to not trip up, do it. Also, really try to avoid the “Congress voice”, it just takes all the emotion and impact out of the debate.

Rhetoric: I like the usage. It is not required but benefits your arguments. The one detractor is using canned rhetoric- generalized statements that have really nothing to do with the debate but sound nice- or rhetoric from a google doc or, and this is probably the worst, using rhetoric from me, or any other competitors. Just please don’t.

P.O.-ing: Follow Roberts rules, make no mistakes, and go fast, you’ll get top three.