Dukalskis,+Alex

Background

-Some LD and CX debate in high school -3 years of parliamentary debate in high school -4 years of NPDA debate in university -Over the last 5 years, I have trained debaters and debate coaches/teachers in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the US with the International Debate Education Association (IDEA)

Education

-bachelor's degree in politics (Willamette University) -master's degree in human rights (London School of Economics) -master's degree in political science (University of Notre Dame) -phd in political science & peace studies (in progress - Univ. of Notre Dame)

Debate

I believe that debate is an important tool that helps people improve their critical thinking, writing, advocacy, personal confidence, and a host of other skills. Perhaps more importantly, it is a mechanism that forces important issues of the day to be subjected to critical scrutiny. It is primarily about (1) good argumentation, and (2) effective communication. Because of this, I believe that debate should be accessible to everyone who is interested - it does little good for anyone to make it a cloistered activity that even highly educated members of the general public find incomprehensible and, in the worst of cases, laughable.

Flowing/Speed

Because of these views, I am not terribly impressed by a team that speaks faster than another team and expects to win because of it. To me, this is about the same as cramming more information into a 20-page paper by making the font size 2. Yes, there is more information and yes, it //may// even be better information, but if the reader gets fed up or loses his/her magnifying glass, you will not have effectively communicated your ideas. Some arguments are more important than others, so take the time to weigh them, reason about them, ect.

Critique/Kritik

While reading really good critical theory can be a fascinating and informative endeavor, there are few things worse than reading (or listening to) really bad critical theory. As such, it is not likely that I will vote for these types of arguments, although it is not out of the question. I will probably not vote against a team because they reify some concept or category, nor will I be likely to vote for a team because they find that the topic itself reaffirms some pernicious power arrangement. To save everyone the time, let's just all agree that the topic reifies something and that each word spoken by each debater and judge in the room reifies something as well, and move on to the debate!

Topicality

I am more impressed by a NEG that can react to an unexpected case and argue against it than by a NEG using topicality as a crutch. There are times and places for topicality, certainly, but I will give some leeway to a NEG that gives it a go even when the AFF is slightly off target. That said, I have little patience for an AFF case that is plainly not linked to the topic.