Nelson,+Adam

National Forensic League
I'm currently Director of Programs and Education for the National Forensic League. I have previously coached at Taipei American School and The Harker School, as well as Rocky River, Salpointe Catholic, and Catalina Foothills High Schools.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm

NOTE: I am no longer actively coaching on the national circuit. As such, I'm not judging many fast rounds these days, and my flowing has therefore gotten significantly slower. I'm also going to be much less familiar with the arguments being run on any given topic than I used to be. Keep that in mind when filling out your pref/strike sheets, and/or if you actually end up with me in the back of the room.

You should feel relatively free to make whatever arguments you’d like in whatever form you’d like. Be aware, however, that my knowledge of critical literature is relatively limited, so you’ll probably have to spend more time explaining those arguments, unless they're relatively common on the particular topic you’re debating. As long as you’re making complete arguments, with claims, warrants, and impacts, are strategically extending arguments in rebuttal, are effectively dealing with your opponent’s responses, are weighing the offense you generate against that of your opponent AS WELL AS __BOTH__ articulating/justifying how your arguments interact with those of your opponent AND comparing the quality of those competing arguments better than your opponent, you’ll probably win.

That said, it would be dishonest for me to claim I don’t have any preferences about what I like to see in debate. These are merely preferences, though, se feel free to make arguments/advocate frameworks contrary to them, as long as you understand you’ll probably be starting at least a little behind if/when you do.


 * 1) I believe debate is a game that is instrumental in achieving certain educational outcomes. While debaters obviously do, and should, learn about the topics they debate, I believe the activity should be structured in a way that maximizes the extent to which debaters develop research, critical thinking, logical reasoning, strategic thinking, and persuasive communication skills.
 * 2) I think the best way to accomplish those goals is to view the resolution as a way of equitably divide ground and strategic options, rather than as a truth statement. That means I will assume appeals to fairness precede arguments about the truth/desirability of the resolution unless either both debaters agree otherwise or one debater is winning arguments to the contrary. By the way, I have gotten so sick of "fairness is not important" arguments that I will probably vote against you for running them, on the premise that if fairness is unimportant you won't mind if I vote against you for a completely arbitrary reason. Enjoy. (By this I mean to indict only those arguments that categorically reject the importance of fairness. You are free to argue that, even if you are being unfair, I should reject the argument rather than the debater, or that some other consideration should precede that of fairness. But, in the latter case, you'll have an uphill battle, as outlined above.)
 * 3) Given my opinion that other paradigms unfairly divide ground and strategic options, I prefer to evaluate the round on the basis of comparing the desirability of competing advocacies. Thus, while you are free to advocate frameworks that limit the range of relevant impacts/alter the way in which I evaluate those impacts, all offensive arguments should have impacts that can be compared in some way, rather than those that merely indicate a violation of some side-constraint or necessary condition.
 * 4) Given that preference, in the absence of offense I can evaluate, I will cast my ballot for the debater that most closely represents the status quo. My opinion regarding which side is more likely to represent the status quo will change depending on the topic, so please ask me about my thoughts in that regard before the round. And, of course, please feel free to debate this issue during the course of the debate.
 * 5) These preferences are also responsible for predispositions I have regarding the theoretical legitimacy of certain arguments/strategies:
 * Strategies that force your opponent to win more layers of argumentation than you do are probably illegitimate.
 * Frameworks that make comparing/outweighing offense irrelevant are probably illegitimate.
 * Strategies that involve you claiming access to multiple advocacies are probably illegitimate. You can have multiple reasons why your advocacy is more desirable, but the negative probably cannot, for example, advocate both the status quo and the world of a counterplan.
 * Parametricizing is probably legitimate. But affirmatives that choose to defend the entirety of the resolution are equally legit.

As you all probably already know, I enjoy theory debates. So don’t be afraid to debate these issues. That said, I tend to believe theory is a matter of competing interpretations, rather than of reasonability, so you should be answering theory with offense derived from a counter-interpretation and/or another theory shell. Defense alone will rarely be sufficient.

I will award speaker points on the basis of the extent to which I enjoy your performance, keeping in mind that I most enjoy strategic executions of well-researched and theoretically legitimate positions. I tend not to give anything less than a 26, give 27s more often than anything else, and will probably not give you a 30 unless yours is the best performance I’ve seen all year.

Ultimately, though, the round is yours to do with as you please. This is how I’ll approach things unless you win arguments proving otherwise. But I’d like to think I enjoy having my assumptions challenged, so please feel free to do so. And, most importantly, have fun!