Lacker
11-29-06, 03:34 PM
Judge Philosophy ------ Aaron Donaldson ----The University of Oregon
What do I think NPDA Debate “Should” Be?
I believe Parli debate is a competitive learning opportunity. The education however comes from thinking critically and responsively and learning to recognize ‘strong’ arguments from ‘vulnerable’ ones…NOT from discussion of world events (though parli can give us a cursory knowledge, without evidence this realm of education is modest at best). I also feel that NPDA gives debaters a chance to learn rhetorical prowess, though in an activity where there is a strategic advantage to MORE arguments I understand the conflict this creates with speedy presentation and do my best to never judge based on presentation alone. I will admit I enjoy the round more if some emphasis is placed on eloquence however.
Background
I competed for 3 years as an LDer in Montana and 4 years as a parli debater/IEer for Carroll College. I have been coaching now for about 4 years and I’ve tried to learn as many formats of debate/argumentation as I can. I understand the issues of ‘technical’ or ‘procedural’ debate, as well as the next person, though I have no shame in admitting that I can get left behind in CX rounds. I do my best to keep up and -generally speaking -do so fine but the fastest of the community can lose me on the flow.
Philosophy/Argumentation
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS:
I strive to be objective and this means I want the easiest win possible. I base that decision on the flow that’s built through the debate and how each position is established, extended, impacted and ultimately compared. It’s your round. That means that I will vote anywhere I’m told to provided there’s a clean win. This means I’ll vote on issues I know to be wrong/defensive unless they’re challenged, and only then I’ll compare them to the challenge presented in the round and NOT my own experience.
Though I have a strong background in LD I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a pure value round. Whether or not the word ‘value’ is in the resolution I feel that our beliefs have real-world implications and implied advocacy. Debate those implications in EVERY round they may be present.
METHOD OF ARGUMENTS:
I prefer impact debate with cleanly articulated, deep link scenarios and comparative analysis on bottom. This means I want to hear as much if not MORE about how the impact ought to compare to other issues as I do on what the impact itself is.
I like teams who can recognize ‘offensive’ vs. ‘defensive’ arguments and that can articulate the difference. This can save you time on defensive positions provided you demonstrate what a defensive argument means for my risk calculus and can fully defuse any offensive potential linked to the position (i.e. a masking DA based on solvency)
Be responsive and COMPARE. Don’t trust me to drop an argument that you say is not true or extend something for you. Even if you give me a list of warrants, chances are so did the other folks so you, at some point, need to compare the warrants or the debate on that position and explain to me why you’re winning on that level.
Preferences
Structure - I like CLEAN flows. Please sign post consistently and continually throughout. I can’t stress enough how important a clean flow is for a judge to make a good decision and for you to make the most of your time in rebuttals so SIGN POST frequently and concisely.
Speed – I ask that no matter how fast you feel you need to go, at least use complete sentences and give me all the warrants for every part of your argument. Former/current NDT or CX debaters should know that I have no experience here as a competitor and limited exposure as a critic so slowing down about 30-40% is probably a good idea. In 98% of the rounds I judge in NPDA and NPTE speed is no issue but when it is…it can be HUGE so be aware of your pace and word economy.
Attitude - Sportsperson like behavior is actually quite important to me. I don’t want to feel bad voting for the team that wins. BE NICE. Refrain from calling arguments absurd, stupid, or silly (use your response to SHOW me how wrong it is) and no matter how much you’re winning by, (and especially if you’re winning by a lot) be respectful to the other team and cordial in your tone to them. You get nothing from me as a critic through arrogance and it can certainly hurt you if too excessive.
What do I think NPDA Debate “Should” Be?
I believe Parli debate is a competitive learning opportunity. The education however comes from thinking critically and responsively and learning to recognize ‘strong’ arguments from ‘vulnerable’ ones…NOT from discussion of world events (though parli can give us a cursory knowledge, without evidence this realm of education is modest at best). I also feel that NPDA gives debaters a chance to learn rhetorical prowess, though in an activity where there is a strategic advantage to MORE arguments I understand the conflict this creates with speedy presentation and do my best to never judge based on presentation alone. I will admit I enjoy the round more if some emphasis is placed on eloquence however.
Background
I competed for 3 years as an LDer in Montana and 4 years as a parli debater/IEer for Carroll College. I have been coaching now for about 4 years and I’ve tried to learn as many formats of debate/argumentation as I can. I understand the issues of ‘technical’ or ‘procedural’ debate, as well as the next person, though I have no shame in admitting that I can get left behind in CX rounds. I do my best to keep up and -generally speaking -do so fine but the fastest of the community can lose me on the flow.
Philosophy/Argumentation
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS:
I strive to be objective and this means I want the easiest win possible. I base that decision on the flow that’s built through the debate and how each position is established, extended, impacted and ultimately compared. It’s your round. That means that I will vote anywhere I’m told to provided there’s a clean win. This means I’ll vote on issues I know to be wrong/defensive unless they’re challenged, and only then I’ll compare them to the challenge presented in the round and NOT my own experience.
Though I have a strong background in LD I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a pure value round. Whether or not the word ‘value’ is in the resolution I feel that our beliefs have real-world implications and implied advocacy. Debate those implications in EVERY round they may be present.
METHOD OF ARGUMENTS:
I prefer impact debate with cleanly articulated, deep link scenarios and comparative analysis on bottom. This means I want to hear as much if not MORE about how the impact ought to compare to other issues as I do on what the impact itself is.
I like teams who can recognize ‘offensive’ vs. ‘defensive’ arguments and that can articulate the difference. This can save you time on defensive positions provided you demonstrate what a defensive argument means for my risk calculus and can fully defuse any offensive potential linked to the position (i.e. a masking DA based on solvency)
Be responsive and COMPARE. Don’t trust me to drop an argument that you say is not true or extend something for you. Even if you give me a list of warrants, chances are so did the other folks so you, at some point, need to compare the warrants or the debate on that position and explain to me why you’re winning on that level.
Preferences
Structure - I like CLEAN flows. Please sign post consistently and continually throughout. I can’t stress enough how important a clean flow is for a judge to make a good decision and for you to make the most of your time in rebuttals so SIGN POST frequently and concisely.
Speed – I ask that no matter how fast you feel you need to go, at least use complete sentences and give me all the warrants for every part of your argument. Former/current NDT or CX debaters should know that I have no experience here as a competitor and limited exposure as a critic so slowing down about 30-40% is probably a good idea. In 98% of the rounds I judge in NPDA and NPTE speed is no issue but when it is…it can be HUGE so be aware of your pace and word economy.
Attitude - Sportsperson like behavior is actually quite important to me. I don’t want to feel bad voting for the team that wins. BE NICE. Refrain from calling arguments absurd, stupid, or silly (use your response to SHOW me how wrong it is) and no matter how much you’re winning by, (and especially if you’re winning by a lot) be respectful to the other team and cordial in your tone to them. You get nothing from me as a critic through arrogance and it can certainly hurt you if too excessive.