Malin,+Barbara


 * Barbara Malin**


 * School:** Ursuline Academy of Dallas; Cistercian Preparatory School


 * Background:** Speech and debate coach for Ursuline and Cistercian; Director of Middle School Speech Competitions for the Diocese of Dallas Speech League; trained as an attorney (primary experience in trial work); participated in policy debate in Alabama in high school.


 * Presentation:** Debate should be an activity focused on effective communication and persuasion. It is not an activity intended to be a contest of speed reading skills. I am able to follow high speed delivery reasonably well; however, I find that typically high school debaters aren’t nearly as effective as they think they are at speaking coherently and understandably at a high rate of speed. In most cases I’ve observed of “spreading” the students would have been better served if they had cut their evidence to emphasize the key points and/or delivered their ex tempore arguments more economically. I won’t yell “clear” or “speed” or anything of that nature if I’m having difficulty following an argument due to speed and/or clarity. One of the key aspects of persuasion is being able to assess whether the audience is following and buying the argument. If I’m not flowing that is a pretty good sign that you’ve lost me and if a point doesn’t make it on to my flow, I won’t be voting on the basis of that point. If you aren’t able to breathe normally in your delivery, I am typically going to find your presentation an ineffective means of communicating. Spreading typically doesn’t cost debaters a round in front of me, but it doesn’t impress me and will lead to lowered speaker points if not done with extreme clarity.


 * Framework:** Be prepared to establish a framework for the evaluation of the debate and explain why your framework is the superior means of testing the truth/validity of the resolution, but do so economically and get to the substance of the debate. I typically won’t decide a debate based on claims that the other side’s framework is abusive (and definitely would prefer not to listen to an entire debate about abuse), but will rather adopt your framework if you persuade me that the opponent’s framework doesn’t allow fair ground for each side.


 * Argument:** I want to hear debate about the resolution rather than debate theory or generic philosophy. I appreciate clearly structured speeches with strong sign posting and minimal use of debate jargon. I understand that it is difficult for debaters to deal with both the affirmative and negative case in the amount of time allotted during rebuttal speeches and understand the need to group and cross apply arguments. Debaters, must, however tell me where to cross apply arguments. I also expect debaters to have to sacrifice some of their points and concentrate on the debate winning issues. I pay attention to dropped arguments if debaters point them out and explain the significance of the dropped argument to the overall debate, but I weigh them in the context of their importance to the issues that are actively debated in the round. I appreciate the identification of voters.


 * Evidence:** Because debate typically does not deal with purely philosophical questions, I find that evidence is helpful in establishing the credibility of an argument as well as assessing the real world impact of adoption of either the affirmative or negative position (where it is appropriate to assess real world impacts). I am impressed by debaters who can use succinct, well cut evidence to buttress their arguments – the key point here being that the evidence should be tied to argument. Because debate is an exercise in oral advocacy, I will never read cards, however, unless there are accusations that the evidence was fabricated or misused.


 * Theory, Kritiks, Game Theory, Performance and Other Debate Innovations:** The extensive use of theory as a voting issue; the rise of the kritik, and the evolution of performance and other unusual styles of debate all postdate my personal involvement in the activity. I’m still on the steep side of the learning curve in these areas and have yet to develop an appreciation for most of them.


 * Disclosure:** I typically do not disclose or critique on the substantive issues of the debate.