My primary argument is that self-defense burdens shouldn’t be treated in the same way as infinitely reductive ‘a priori’ burdens. I’d think that, technically, both instances involve necessary but insufficient burdens. The questions is whether or not both instances are equivalent in terms of fairness to the 1AC.

There’s a somewhat separate argument Nebel advances about engaging a nibs debate once it happens. I think I agree with him too, but that’s probably a different issue.

Back in the day, it always seemed like there was an audience member who would happily keep time. Another reason more people should be watching out-rounds!

This should be a reminder to all debaters that they should BOTH be keeping time at all times (and also to wait to start speaking until their judges are back from the bathroom lol).

I thought it was telling this summer at VBI that a lot of our first-year instructors commented on a lack of clarity when judging practice debates. It seemed like they hadn’t given it as much thought previously because, as debaters, they took for granted that they wouldn’t be able to understand one another and just resorted to reading over each others’ shoulders or flashing cases to each other via jump drive. Judges just don’t have that opportunity though, and they shouldn’t have the need to do so either.

I’ve always been an advocate for allowing debaters to go fast, but that’s partially because the norms in LD were once quite a bit slower. Even now, though, I think it’s largely a matter of clarity and organization. When Jake Nebel read quickly a few years back, I found him incredibly easy to flow. But, I see a lot of people who speed through lists of blippy arguments, run through dense philosophy, etc… all the while not opening their mouths and enunciating.

They have the same issues in policy today too, and there’s also a persuasion deficit. I think you can be fast and persuasive, but apparently that’s an oxymoron to most people.

Until judges speak up, I think little will change. And even when judges do yell “clear,” I’ve seen debaters refuse to change delivery time and again. Kind of baffling.

At the end of the day, theory debates would benefit from all the same things we’ve tried to teach debaters to do in the rest of the debate: give reasons, be comparative, and crystallize. In this instance, that last part is crucial: as long as debaters remain silent, they leave judges to settle these things in their own heads (and that’s usually not something I want to do). If, alternatively, debaters spent time telling the judge how they should be evaluating arguments and what their expectations should be (e.g. for responding to NIBs bad), I for one would be very receptive to reasonable suggestions.