Schally
10-28-09, 11:07 PM
The Schally Doctrine
Judging Paradigm
INTRODUCTION: If you are reading this it means that you are probably in the minority of the community by proxy of not being a former WKU debater, and are thus not constrained against me. You are fortunate for both reasons.
As a competitor, I thought scores of judging philosophies were primarily self-aggrandizing and lacking usefulness. Proceeding with the adage, “the only bad judging philosophy is a dishonest one… or anything from NorCal,” I have made a noteworthy effort to reveal my known predispositions. Of course, (requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) these are purely my opinions and I can be dissuaded from them unless explicitly noted. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula.
BACKGROUND: I debated for three years in college at Western Kentucky University (please, don’t hold it against me) and one at Century Community College (“ “), where I competed in both Parliamentary (NPTE/NPDA) and NFA Lincoln-Douglas (strike two, I know) debate. As an undergraduate I studied political science (mostly comparative and international relations) and gender studies. Now as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I study critical fields of geography, environmental studies, and public policy.
GLOBAL THOUGHTS:
• I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it.
• In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality.
• I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. .
• Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify communication failures and correct them.
Questions concerning my philosophy are best addressed to Chad Meadows at chadwick.meadows@wku.edu
For the purposes of organization and clarity, I have divided this into generalized argument categories. To avoid confusing the ‘government team’ and the ‘actual’ government, I will refer to sides as affirmative and negative.
TOPICALITY: You’ll notice that topicality appears first. This is because if it is not first, then it is last (I am told). Obviously topicality is a question of competing interpretations, but it seems just as intuitive to me that if the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact to topicality i.e. fairness or education, then there is no compelling reason to vote negative. So, if you win that your interpretation is marginally better in a relatively unimportant way, then you must justify why it is that I should reward you with the ballot. Within this framework if you do not “meet” any interpretation in the round then it is difficult to vote for you because you have not provided a justification for how you affirm the topic, so offer a counter-interpretation. Too often debaters neglect the “impact” of your interpretation and what their world of debate looks like, so get with it.
THEORY DEBATES: Does topic education outweigh analytic/process driven education? Does ‘judge intervention’ have a unique impact in relation to other theory impacts? You should answer these questions. I am likely to assume that rejecting the argument solves your impact, unless persuaded otherwise. I try my best to check my biases at the door, just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Theory debates typically move fast because people memorize blocks, so please allow for pen time to ensure that I get everything.
Generic – Not many arguments fit into this category but I couldn’t find another place to put them. When a resolution does not designate an actor, I am likely to believe that plans that fiat a number of actors (especially private) are abusive. The argument that “the aff will be vetoed/rolled back by the Pres or Congress” is laughable. By this I mean that, on occasion, when I am depressed, I think about this argument, and I laugh out loud.
Counterplans – I think that negative teams benefit greatly by including a theoretical defense of their counterplan in the LOC, otherwise the debate starts in the MG and I often have a difficult time figuring out how to reconcile new’ish PMR impact comparisons on these theory debates. In evidence debate, I tend to think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence and attempt to apply this same principle to parli debates. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. A specific defense of your PIC should win over a generic PICs bad block. I am skeptical of minute (adj.) process counterplans that I see now with alarming regularity (especially at tournaments with topic areas), and I tend to believe that these counterplans drive debate toward meaningless implementation issues. In other words, I tend to believe that counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate, and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. I am skeptical of multiple counterplans and in parli specifically think that better clashing debate occurs when the negative pre-thinks and settles on a single strategy. I rarely see teams creatively counterplan away affirmative advantages or generate uniqueness and wish this happened more often.
KRITIKS: Providing a clear and persuasive explanation of your argument is vastly more important than advertising your mastery of a cultural studies vocab list. People seem to often lose sight of the fact that critiques are just arguments, so don’t strive to mystify your argument on either side. Aff teams are usually better off attempting to engage the kritik than spewing down a list of “pomo ain’t good”. I would rather listen to smart analytical arguments than 5 minutes of realism good without reading a link. I think that ‘decision clarity’ is an important impact in determining a preferable framework for the debate, but I also think that it is possible to evaluate arguments in frameworks other than policymaking (i.e. representations or intellectual strategies).
DISADVANTAGES: In assessing risk I tend belong to the ‘link first’ school of thought regarding disadvantages. To clarify, I find that if a disad is extremely unique then it obviously requires a high magnitude of a link to trigger the impact, but on the converse, if a disad is brink’ish then the neg has to win a high magnitude of a link to distinguish the plan from the conditions that created the brink. In either case, the question is the degree to which the aff causes the link. Uniqueness is, of course, very important however I find “we control uniqueness” to be code for “our link is terrible.” I do not believe in “1% of a link” and I am comfortable saying that there is not one, you should win your link and then you may assess risk of an impact. I think that if you “link turn” a disad and control the net-direction of the link but have no uniqueness answers that the risk of the disad is probably still zero. I think that intelligent defensive answers are under-utilized in most debates that I watch.
IMPACTS: I think that impact comparison is one of the least sophisticated levels of analysis in most debates, which is very unfortunate. I welcome creative ways of framing the importance of differing impacts and would like to see rebuttals employ more “tiebreaker” arguments. Smart defensive arguments are an invaluable part of any good impact debate. Arguments deemed “counterintuitive” are welcome, but before unloading your early 90’s backfiles you should recognize that most of these arguments are intellectually weak and require some finesse to pull off.
SPEAKER POINTS: Since I do not carry a pocket-version of the NPDA speaker point rubric, which we all know is essential to providing direction to misguided judges who have departed from the communicative principles upon which parliamentary debate is founded, I cannot promise the same level of precision and consistency in assigning speaker points as the esteemed critics of the Point Loma and NPDA tournaments. My range will probably reside within 25 – 30. I will probably award a 30 once per tournament (or less), 28-29 will represent a good to great speech, 27 should reflect a decent to mediocre speech, a 26 would be accompanied by substantial criticism, and a 25 or less will only be earned if you cheat (actually cheat, not the k) or behave in a flagrantly offensive manner.
PARLI-SPECIFIC STUFF:
Trichotomy – One does not exist. This does not preclude you, however, from contesting the method by which the aff defends the resolution as being not topical. The bottom line: I think that you should have a resolutional basis for whatever it is that you decide to do. I do not find counterinterps such as “it’s always policy” to be particularly responsive to predictability claims. At the same time, it is not overwhelmingly difficult to find an explanation as to how you are a defense of the resolution and then proving that your paradigm for debate is better.
Aff Frameworks – I laugh hysterically at the endless waves of hipster philosophies claiming ‘ONLY POLICY! … but critical stuff is cool too.’ See: Ben Haas. It is not my place to say that your ethics aff is legit if you reference Derrida, but not if you reference Kant. In many extremes people should realize that these are two sides of the same coin and should notice the striking similarity between the theoretical defenses of “genealogy affs” and time-shift or ‘”should” = past tense’. Trendy-ness should ideally never be a primary measure of theoretical legitimacy, so whatever you choose to call it, when deviating far from the norm please provide an explanation as to how the round should be determined and a theoretical defense of that position if it is challenged. (See more: Kritiks) While I do find non-traditional methods of affirming (or negating) to be interesting, I remain concerned about fairness issues.
Points Of Order – I do not require points of order to be made in order to exclude new arguments, however I understand the strategic utility of them and am unlikely to punish you for using something that is put at your disposal by the rules. What I do take issue with however is the procedure, or lack thereof, in which points of orders are handled. The majority of Points of Order that I have observed quickly devolved into being unclear, circular, and annoying. So I prefer the following format: 1) the debater making the objection states their argument in full and not to be interrupted; 2) the debater whose speech it is may be allowed to answer the objection; 3) the debater who made the objection (or their partner) may further clarify their point a final time; 4) the speaker may respond once more. Ideally these statements would be limited to 15 seconds or less, but I understand that this is circumstantial and you will benefit from composing your objection into a very clear and concise statement. I am very likely to take your point “under consideration” because often I find that an objection is partially correct or predictive of something that has not actually been said yet, etc. At other times in prelim rounds I may rule on a point or order, but I will accompany it with a specific statement as to what I am deciding.
Opposition Block – The LOR does not need to make explicit extensions from the MOC. However, expounding upon certain arguments can affect the relative strength of that argument when I evaluate it. I will also defer to the nuance of argument explanation and comparison offered by the rebuttals. I think that “splitting” the block is particularly unfair and am probably heavily bias to agree with arguments against it. What constitutes a ‘new’ argument is becoming an increasingly grey area as arguments are pushed later into the debate. I think that a useful LOR should expound upon the implications of certain arguments, an example “winning uniqueness on the disad means this” is a legitimate application of an argument made in the MOC/LOR. If you want me to “box in” your opponents, then you should provide a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was critical. That being said, I do not like sandbagging and I will exert close scrutiny on the rebuttals. Make better arguments and you wont have to be sneaky.
Points of Information – Your speech time is yours and you may entertain questions at any time and for however long. I do not think that anyone is entitled to a certain number of questions that exceeds 1-2, especially in a time-pressured speech such as the MG(C). I also do not consider necessary clarifications such as counterplan status or repeating a text to qualify as “questions”.
Texts – I prefer that textual advocacies be written down in a legible and shareable format if you are not going to repeat them in your speech, so that I have a definite form somewhere.
Protected Time: This rule is outdated and irrelevant to me; you are welcome to accept/decline questions within this period as you choose. As I have likely mentioned elsewhere, I am not usually amiable to procedurals with arbitrary interpretations and am often persuaded by the argument that ‘even if your interpretation could make debate better, that the other team could not anticipate it’. With that said, I think that the last minute of your speech establishes a fair and predictable bright line for procedurals that object to when a plan/counterplan/alternative text is read and especially in the event where questions are not fielded.
Specification Arguments – Without making claim to a specific strategy skew I find these arguments to be extremely weak. I do think that these arguments are often necessary for securing viable and relevant strategies, but more often they should be thrown away in the MOC selection. The specificity of your ground and/or education claims (to the topic) will make all the difference on these debates, in other words, an argument such as “judicial vs. legislative action is a central issue surrounding the debate over gay-marriage because movements must make choices and events from DOMA to state court action prove” is substantially better than “we lose politics!”. The proliferation of *spec arguments was one of the most annoying developments in parli during my career, please do not expect me to be happy if your LOC consists of ASPEC, ESPEC, and VAGUENESS without any specific claims of education loss or abuse. I think that people should remember that they do parli. In other words, I tend to think that topic education is better served by parli than analytic/process education.
DECORUM: I do not dress you; wear whatever you want. I recognize that this activity is very intense, but try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures. If you are decisively beating a team (particularly a younger or less successful team), then there’s no need to be rude. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter. If it is a close debate or if there is some bad blood between the debaters, then you can act however you want. I am extremely unlikely to be offended by something you say in a debate, no matter how indignant you think you are. *Nobody should ever feel threatened or marginalized because of his or her race, gender, class, or sexual orientation and if this is done deliberately (and maliciously) I reserve the right to reduce speaker points or intervene if it makes the debate impossible. Understand that this does not mean that if an argument your opponents are making makes you feel uncomfortable then you are being marginalized, rather I am attempting to caution people against targeting their opponents with flagrantly offensive language and/or behavior.
DELIVERY (SPEED / CLARITY): I will provide verbal prompts if I am not on a panel, should clarity or speed become issues. Speed has never bothered me in parliamentary debate, however speed should not be confused with blippiness and I would caution you that the amount of explanation an argument is given certainly affects its relative strength. I think that attempting to engage your opponents is admirable and would prefer if you do not use speed purely as a means of excluding people from participating in the round. However, if a team chooses to object to the rate of delivery used by their opponents, then they must win their argument in the debate.
DISCLOSURE: I welcome post-round discussion—even if it is confrontational—it lets me debate again.
Tom Schally
University of Oregon
Judging Paradigm
INTRODUCTION: If you are reading this it means that you are probably in the minority of the community by proxy of not being a former WKU debater, and are thus not constrained against me. You are fortunate for both reasons.
As a competitor, I thought scores of judging philosophies were primarily self-aggrandizing and lacking usefulness. Proceeding with the adage, “the only bad judging philosophy is a dishonest one… or anything from NorCal,” I have made a noteworthy effort to reveal my known predispositions. Of course, (requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) these are purely my opinions and I can be dissuaded from them unless explicitly noted. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula.
BACKGROUND: I debated for three years in college at Western Kentucky University (please, don’t hold it against me) and one at Century Community College (“ “), where I competed in both Parliamentary (NPTE/NPDA) and NFA Lincoln-Douglas (strike two, I know) debate. As an undergraduate I studied political science (mostly comparative and international relations) and gender studies. Now as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I study critical fields of geography, environmental studies, and public policy.
GLOBAL THOUGHTS:
• I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it.
• In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality.
• I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. .
• Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify communication failures and correct them.
Questions concerning my philosophy are best addressed to Chad Meadows at chadwick.meadows@wku.edu
For the purposes of organization and clarity, I have divided this into generalized argument categories. To avoid confusing the ‘government team’ and the ‘actual’ government, I will refer to sides as affirmative and negative.
TOPICALITY: You’ll notice that topicality appears first. This is because if it is not first, then it is last (I am told). Obviously topicality is a question of competing interpretations, but it seems just as intuitive to me that if the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact to topicality i.e. fairness or education, then there is no compelling reason to vote negative. So, if you win that your interpretation is marginally better in a relatively unimportant way, then you must justify why it is that I should reward you with the ballot. Within this framework if you do not “meet” any interpretation in the round then it is difficult to vote for you because you have not provided a justification for how you affirm the topic, so offer a counter-interpretation. Too often debaters neglect the “impact” of your interpretation and what their world of debate looks like, so get with it.
THEORY DEBATES: Does topic education outweigh analytic/process driven education? Does ‘judge intervention’ have a unique impact in relation to other theory impacts? You should answer these questions. I am likely to assume that rejecting the argument solves your impact, unless persuaded otherwise. I try my best to check my biases at the door, just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Theory debates typically move fast because people memorize blocks, so please allow for pen time to ensure that I get everything.
Generic – Not many arguments fit into this category but I couldn’t find another place to put them. When a resolution does not designate an actor, I am likely to believe that plans that fiat a number of actors (especially private) are abusive. The argument that “the aff will be vetoed/rolled back by the Pres or Congress” is laughable. By this I mean that, on occasion, when I am depressed, I think about this argument, and I laugh out loud.
Counterplans – I think that negative teams benefit greatly by including a theoretical defense of their counterplan in the LOC, otherwise the debate starts in the MG and I often have a difficult time figuring out how to reconcile new’ish PMR impact comparisons on these theory debates. In evidence debate, I tend to think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence and attempt to apply this same principle to parli debates. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. A specific defense of your PIC should win over a generic PICs bad block. I am skeptical of minute (adj.) process counterplans that I see now with alarming regularity (especially at tournaments with topic areas), and I tend to believe that these counterplans drive debate toward meaningless implementation issues. In other words, I tend to believe that counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate, and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. I am skeptical of multiple counterplans and in parli specifically think that better clashing debate occurs when the negative pre-thinks and settles on a single strategy. I rarely see teams creatively counterplan away affirmative advantages or generate uniqueness and wish this happened more often.
KRITIKS: Providing a clear and persuasive explanation of your argument is vastly more important than advertising your mastery of a cultural studies vocab list. People seem to often lose sight of the fact that critiques are just arguments, so don’t strive to mystify your argument on either side. Aff teams are usually better off attempting to engage the kritik than spewing down a list of “pomo ain’t good”. I would rather listen to smart analytical arguments than 5 minutes of realism good without reading a link. I think that ‘decision clarity’ is an important impact in determining a preferable framework for the debate, but I also think that it is possible to evaluate arguments in frameworks other than policymaking (i.e. representations or intellectual strategies).
DISADVANTAGES: In assessing risk I tend belong to the ‘link first’ school of thought regarding disadvantages. To clarify, I find that if a disad is extremely unique then it obviously requires a high magnitude of a link to trigger the impact, but on the converse, if a disad is brink’ish then the neg has to win a high magnitude of a link to distinguish the plan from the conditions that created the brink. In either case, the question is the degree to which the aff causes the link. Uniqueness is, of course, very important however I find “we control uniqueness” to be code for “our link is terrible.” I do not believe in “1% of a link” and I am comfortable saying that there is not one, you should win your link and then you may assess risk of an impact. I think that if you “link turn” a disad and control the net-direction of the link but have no uniqueness answers that the risk of the disad is probably still zero. I think that intelligent defensive answers are under-utilized in most debates that I watch.
IMPACTS: I think that impact comparison is one of the least sophisticated levels of analysis in most debates, which is very unfortunate. I welcome creative ways of framing the importance of differing impacts and would like to see rebuttals employ more “tiebreaker” arguments. Smart defensive arguments are an invaluable part of any good impact debate. Arguments deemed “counterintuitive” are welcome, but before unloading your early 90’s backfiles you should recognize that most of these arguments are intellectually weak and require some finesse to pull off.
SPEAKER POINTS: Since I do not carry a pocket-version of the NPDA speaker point rubric, which we all know is essential to providing direction to misguided judges who have departed from the communicative principles upon which parliamentary debate is founded, I cannot promise the same level of precision and consistency in assigning speaker points as the esteemed critics of the Point Loma and NPDA tournaments. My range will probably reside within 25 – 30. I will probably award a 30 once per tournament (or less), 28-29 will represent a good to great speech, 27 should reflect a decent to mediocre speech, a 26 would be accompanied by substantial criticism, and a 25 or less will only be earned if you cheat (actually cheat, not the k) or behave in a flagrantly offensive manner.
PARLI-SPECIFIC STUFF:
Trichotomy – One does not exist. This does not preclude you, however, from contesting the method by which the aff defends the resolution as being not topical. The bottom line: I think that you should have a resolutional basis for whatever it is that you decide to do. I do not find counterinterps such as “it’s always policy” to be particularly responsive to predictability claims. At the same time, it is not overwhelmingly difficult to find an explanation as to how you are a defense of the resolution and then proving that your paradigm for debate is better.
Aff Frameworks – I laugh hysterically at the endless waves of hipster philosophies claiming ‘ONLY POLICY! … but critical stuff is cool too.’ See: Ben Haas. It is not my place to say that your ethics aff is legit if you reference Derrida, but not if you reference Kant. In many extremes people should realize that these are two sides of the same coin and should notice the striking similarity between the theoretical defenses of “genealogy affs” and time-shift or ‘”should” = past tense’. Trendy-ness should ideally never be a primary measure of theoretical legitimacy, so whatever you choose to call it, when deviating far from the norm please provide an explanation as to how the round should be determined and a theoretical defense of that position if it is challenged. (See more: Kritiks) While I do find non-traditional methods of affirming (or negating) to be interesting, I remain concerned about fairness issues.
Points Of Order – I do not require points of order to be made in order to exclude new arguments, however I understand the strategic utility of them and am unlikely to punish you for using something that is put at your disposal by the rules. What I do take issue with however is the procedure, or lack thereof, in which points of orders are handled. The majority of Points of Order that I have observed quickly devolved into being unclear, circular, and annoying. So I prefer the following format: 1) the debater making the objection states their argument in full and not to be interrupted; 2) the debater whose speech it is may be allowed to answer the objection; 3) the debater who made the objection (or their partner) may further clarify their point a final time; 4) the speaker may respond once more. Ideally these statements would be limited to 15 seconds or less, but I understand that this is circumstantial and you will benefit from composing your objection into a very clear and concise statement. I am very likely to take your point “under consideration” because often I find that an objection is partially correct or predictive of something that has not actually been said yet, etc. At other times in prelim rounds I may rule on a point or order, but I will accompany it with a specific statement as to what I am deciding.
Opposition Block – The LOR does not need to make explicit extensions from the MOC. However, expounding upon certain arguments can affect the relative strength of that argument when I evaluate it. I will also defer to the nuance of argument explanation and comparison offered by the rebuttals. I think that “splitting” the block is particularly unfair and am probably heavily bias to agree with arguments against it. What constitutes a ‘new’ argument is becoming an increasingly grey area as arguments are pushed later into the debate. I think that a useful LOR should expound upon the implications of certain arguments, an example “winning uniqueness on the disad means this” is a legitimate application of an argument made in the MOC/LOR. If you want me to “box in” your opponents, then you should provide a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was critical. That being said, I do not like sandbagging and I will exert close scrutiny on the rebuttals. Make better arguments and you wont have to be sneaky.
Points of Information – Your speech time is yours and you may entertain questions at any time and for however long. I do not think that anyone is entitled to a certain number of questions that exceeds 1-2, especially in a time-pressured speech such as the MG(C). I also do not consider necessary clarifications such as counterplan status or repeating a text to qualify as “questions”.
Texts – I prefer that textual advocacies be written down in a legible and shareable format if you are not going to repeat them in your speech, so that I have a definite form somewhere.
Protected Time: This rule is outdated and irrelevant to me; you are welcome to accept/decline questions within this period as you choose. As I have likely mentioned elsewhere, I am not usually amiable to procedurals with arbitrary interpretations and am often persuaded by the argument that ‘even if your interpretation could make debate better, that the other team could not anticipate it’. With that said, I think that the last minute of your speech establishes a fair and predictable bright line for procedurals that object to when a plan/counterplan/alternative text is read and especially in the event where questions are not fielded.
Specification Arguments – Without making claim to a specific strategy skew I find these arguments to be extremely weak. I do think that these arguments are often necessary for securing viable and relevant strategies, but more often they should be thrown away in the MOC selection. The specificity of your ground and/or education claims (to the topic) will make all the difference on these debates, in other words, an argument such as “judicial vs. legislative action is a central issue surrounding the debate over gay-marriage because movements must make choices and events from DOMA to state court action prove” is substantially better than “we lose politics!”. The proliferation of *spec arguments was one of the most annoying developments in parli during my career, please do not expect me to be happy if your LOC consists of ASPEC, ESPEC, and VAGUENESS without any specific claims of education loss or abuse. I think that people should remember that they do parli. In other words, I tend to think that topic education is better served by parli than analytic/process education.
DECORUM: I do not dress you; wear whatever you want. I recognize that this activity is very intense, but try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures. If you are decisively beating a team (particularly a younger or less successful team), then there’s no need to be rude. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter. If it is a close debate or if there is some bad blood between the debaters, then you can act however you want. I am extremely unlikely to be offended by something you say in a debate, no matter how indignant you think you are. *Nobody should ever feel threatened or marginalized because of his or her race, gender, class, or sexual orientation and if this is done deliberately (and maliciously) I reserve the right to reduce speaker points or intervene if it makes the debate impossible. Understand that this does not mean that if an argument your opponents are making makes you feel uncomfortable then you are being marginalized, rather I am attempting to caution people against targeting their opponents with flagrantly offensive language and/or behavior.
DELIVERY (SPEED / CLARITY): I will provide verbal prompts if I am not on a panel, should clarity or speed become issues. Speed has never bothered me in parliamentary debate, however speed should not be confused with blippiness and I would caution you that the amount of explanation an argument is given certainly affects its relative strength. I think that attempting to engage your opponents is admirable and would prefer if you do not use speed purely as a means of excluding people from participating in the round. However, if a team chooses to object to the rate of delivery used by their opponents, then they must win their argument in the debate.
DISCLOSURE: I welcome post-round discussion—even if it is confrontational—it lets me debate again.
Tom Schally
University of Oregon