Monthly Archives
Three Things You Can Do To Improve Your Standards Debating by Adam Torson
One of the most common mistakes the average debater makes when addressing the standards is to be insufficiently comparative. A judge is presented not with the question of whether a standard is the best of all possible standards, but rather whether it is the best standard presented in that particular round. A major source of forced judge intervention is debaters talking past each other on the standards debate. With that in mind, here are three things you can do to make your standards debating more effective.
Stop Running “Deliberate” T by Stephen Babb
A menace is once again sweeping across the land, this time in the form of a topicality argument suggesting the use of deadly force is only “deliberate” if it is slow and unhurried. The implication is that the only topical use of deadly force is that which a victim plans thoroughly in pre-meditated fashion. These interpretations are meant to problematize the 1AC’s ability to justify deadly force on self-defense grounds (since an of self-defense would supposedly involve no planning, forethought, or consideration whatsoever).
To say nothing of how annoying it is to watch a meaningful debate get sidetracked by desperate strategic misgivings, this is also just a bad argument.
Paradigms and Principles: Offensive Arguments
This week I would like to discuss the following question:
A. At what point is it appropriate to drop a debater for making an offensive argument rather than simply tanking their speaker points?
9 Issues Facing the LD Community by Mike Bietz
I originally wrote this article for the NDCA in March of 2008. A lot has changed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate since 2008. Over the next few weeks I’ll try to elaborate and evaluate on my statements from almost 4 years ago.
Read more →
Respect: Part I by Chris Theis
“I’m sorry for what I have to do here.”
“Then don’t”
“Sorry you just had to listen to that.”
“Then why did you do it?”
More and more this season I find debaters apologizing to me before and after rounds. This is not entirely new. Ever since I started judging an occasional debater (usually a freshman or sophomore) would apologize for a poor performance. However, that was usually the result of a lack of confidence and/or a debater feeling down on themselves for making dumb mistakes. This year, though, debaters are apologizing for something else altogether, something that I can only characterize as the deliberate infliction of emotional and mental anguish on the judge. This is a problem, and it all comes down to a lack of respect, from both sides. Debaters do not respect the paradigm, preferences, and opinions of judges and judges do not respect debaters enough to be honest about those preferences and opinions. In this first installment in a two part series I will talk about the first half of that respect problem.
Read more →