Logas,+Mary+Beth

Bio: Government and history teacher, senior coach.

Argument structure: I have done a lot of work in Congress and Public Forum, and am therefore somewhat sympathetic to considerations of real-world policy. **//However//**, that is **//not//** what LD is all about. Connecting the structure through value and value criterion to the proposition is very important. Debaters need to make the logic work. Good logic is more likely to work than attempting to bury the argument under a series of conflicting sources. When it comes to philosophy, a point which is supported by different philosophers is especially strong, but debaters should be careful how they use this.

Evidence: Again, my experience in Congress and PF makes me alert to the use of evidence which does not actually prove the point it is being raised to support. Evidence is useful only if it actually proves what the debater claims it proves. And I hate an argument about evidence. If an opponent is abusing or misusing evidence, a debater should mention it and move on. If too much time in a debate is being wasted arguing about evidence, which is especially repugnant in LD, I do not consider that I am judging an excellent round of Lincoln-Douglas.

Major considerations: Debate the proposition! If the debate has been pulled into peripheral issues, and one debater seeks to pull it back to the proposition, I will be suitably grateful. I want to see clash, but the most important thing is debating the issue at hand.

An accurate summary of the course of argument and voting issues, in accordance with what I have said above, is obviously a good way to win the round. Signposting helps me to organize what has been said, and to maintain credit for points when challenged by an opponent. However, though I need to consider a simple drop of an argument, a strong response to a challenge tends to be more effective.

Deportment: Debaters need to be polite to one another, and to the judge. Rudeness will be punished in speaker points, and considered in judgment since it is a distraction and not an effective argument for the side. Attention and accurate characterization of what the opponent has said is especially effective. I dislike being told things like, "you must vote affirmative," or "a negative ballot is the only possible vote in this debate." "I urge you to vote affirmative" will do just fine.

Speaker points: Since the most important issue for me is keeping to the proposition, the debater who does that best has, in my opinion, spoken most effectively. I prefer the standard LD custom of facing the judge during cross-ex. I will take enunciation, articulation, level of comfort, and //**clarity**// into consideration. I consider excessive speed inappropriate in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I do not feel compelled to consider an argument being delivered at such a pace that I cannot understand what is being said. A clear philosophical framework linked to the proposition will work much better than a spread designed to confuse.