Zwarensteyn,+Ellen

Director of Debate and Instructor at East Kentwood High School Debated for 6 years - debated at East Kentwood HS and briefly at MSU Have worked at various summer institutes 2015-2016 will be my 20th year coaching. Contact: ezwarensteyn (at) gmail.com
 * Ellen Zwarensteyn**

A few notes - first on thesis and then general debates.

Evolving (not a Genesis) Thoughts on Debate. Regarding the Zwarensteyn 2012 arguments. As of April 29, 2016. [ [|__http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=theses__] ]

Four years later, the research presented in the 2012 thesis brings continued reflection. I am compelled, based on debates which have used this evidence and my own academic growth, to clarify its advocacy. This thesis does not serve to privilege one ‘style’ of debate over another. It does not validate one process of debate. It does, however, serve to argue stated differences between policy, performance, and critical theory debates are both arbitrary and counterproductive. Distinctions are arbitrary. All aspects of policy, performance, and critiques debate values and mechanism. They debate what a policy might mean. They debate (or assume) philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings. All of these are worthy of discussion for the education of debaters (and judges). Please do not read my thesis to suggest one form of debate is more worthy than another.

The thesis advances debate is beneficial to political knowledge. Period. Debate is good. Period. From here, how we choose to define beneficial or political is paradoxically both broad and narrow in scope. To advance traditional policy debates engage in the political more than others is a fallacy. The FIAT debate is a deliberate choice to avoid (defense) and actively masks (offense) policy education. FIAT, through beneficial to discuss the merits of an argument, does not access role-playing or policy education. Role-playing and policy education requires knowledge of and advances policy education - implementation education. Implementation education is broader than United States federal government. Implementary education is broader than which branch should do the plan. Instead implementation education should be viewed in ways in which we advocate and persuade. FIAT isn’t real. Durable FIAT is even a greater farce. Refocusing debates on in round skills inclusive of advocacy and persuasion is a more portable skill than FIAT and more true to reasons why people debate.

We turn then to question of who does FIAT benefit. At its worst, FIAT is an exercise of privilege. This is privilege because they can grandstand on an argument without the knowledge of and skills for constructing political change. This is privilege because they may be able to summon others to care about the methods - they are not engaged in the details themselves. Policy skills and advocacy skills evolve from knowing why you are engaging. Why questions involve a personal relationship to both form and content. From here, knowing how, who, and when to engage are honest and authentic means of political education.

Honest and authentic means of political education matters. > > >
 * 1)  Locating one’s self within politics is essential to perspective. Knowing ways in which you can interact with politics matters to your intended outcome. Located yourself also means being able to locate multiple perspectives. Multiple perspectives matter to understanding a policy and its impact on multiple populations.
 * 1)  Actual policy implementation education. We know education comes from dialogue surrounding ideas and their implementation. Ignoring how FIAT erases implementation education on the affirmative while demanding FIAT action of other affirmative teams, is oppressive at best and outright contradictory. This violates traditional views of switch-side debate (which is and of itself a problematic theory - more on that later).
 * 1)  Ignoring questions of implementation shifts responsibilities upon populations uniquely erased and oppressed throughout history. Those in states of economic, gender, sexual, and racial privilege historically have commanded actions - demanding completion of ordained actions - by those on the ground serving others. Situating this in a historical context matters so as not to replicate structures of violence.

FIAT can be beneficial in that it does move dialogue around goals. If our intent is to change a specific policy - discussing the merits of the change can galvanize public support. Discussing advantages and disadvantages of reducing surveillance, military action, and/or enhancing educational opportunities are critical as they engage in dialogue around the potential of public policy. The potential of public policy is essential to move our society to a more just world. Divorcing the idealized world they could create from the method in which one chooses to personally engage, however, is both historically irreverent and poor advocacy. Civil rights activists and abolitionists throughout history have located themselves, their families, and their communities in the struggle. Suffrage movements demand acknowledgement of innate values of personhood. To ignore argument utilizing one’s own social location literally erases all revolutionary scholars. How one engages needs analysis for its consistency, authenticity, and potential. How one engages is ripe for debate - how much of one’s self should be injected into debate is a valid question. Debating social location does not erase debatable ground, in fact, is may increase debatable discussion regarding competing methodologies - personal, instrumental, and institutional. It is only from dialogue, that any judge can move into discussion. The ballot then is a decision based on the dialogue, the search for meaning, between competing teams.

Debate Round Notes: My ideas about debate continue to change - I hope for the better. To me this means ensuring more students gain access and stay involved in debate. I view the role of a judge not only as someone who decides who wins/loses - but also to ensure the environment is safe for all debates present and involved in the activity. This is somewhat subjective - but I believe the structure of debate (times, order etc) is beneficial for access.
 * How I tend to evaluate a debate round. A few notes:**

I enjoy debates that search for root causes of complex identity questions as they pertain to the topic. That being said, without such debates, I will tend to default to a policy-making framework unless persuaded to vote in a different framework. I hope debate can be about searching for truths (micro or meta) during debate rounds.

More than anything, debate should a kind exchange of ideas. Please be kind to each other. Avoid gendered, racist, classist, ableist, homophobic or other offensive language or behavior. Please avoid such remarks both in debate and in life.

C/X Matters. Use it strategically and be kind. Be attentive and communicate.

I tend to fall in an offense-defensive framework but this is not absolute If a defensive arguments is assigned a value – it could help take-out an argument or mitigate in order to evaluate another debate.

Please respect your opponent. Flow.

Also, if on paper, please set up a place/routine for placing evidence after it is read. If you need to look over a shoulder, do it occasionally. Please do not hover. Do not take flows or cards from opponents during their speech unless placed in the agreed upon location. If paperless, do not prep during flashing. Have a viewing computer. Ask questions before the round to ensure everyone's comfort.

When debaters read evidence and make comparative warrants is educational and makes for a good debate. I will reward critical thought and engagement. Read evidence, read warrants in your evidence, make analytical arguments, and compare evidence/warrants.

I like full dates. This is especially true of uniqueness evidence.

I like case debates. I like comparative debates that compare policies and methods. Well-researched case debate is very exciting.
 * Case**

Access matters here. I do enjoy a good standards debate.
 * T**

Compeition is good. Net benefits are good. I do not like multiple counterplans by perms and will give the neg leeway in the perm debate. I like written out CP texts and perm texts.
 * CPs**

I find critique debates when there is an unique application of the link. Links of omission are not generally persuasive. I do believe that some specific language or representation based critiques are persuasive. I find critical and performance arguments can be powerful when the evidence is specific to the topic at hand and made relevant by the debaters. I dislike objectivism
 * Ks**

Ugh. Theory matters to me when there are in round applications of abuse/theory. Theory for theories sake is not particularly fun. Please do not use your blocks as an effort to read as much as you can as quickly as you can. Instead, pick and choose the relevant theory arguments and show its in round application. I do not flow quick theory particularly well. Slow it down if it matters.
 * Theory**

Although I believe whole-heartedly that negative has the right to attack the aff from any avenue, I do like a consistent strategy by the negative block. I do not enjoy multiple counterplans but will tolerate multiple worlds until the block. I tend to give the aff more leeway in their 1AR answers if this scenario would arise.
 * Multiple Worlds**

Start relatively slow in your speech. Remain relatively slow. I am attempting to reward slower debates for accessibility. Clear and quick might be alright - but I am also more cognizant of hard of hearing issues. Be clear. Give me a chance to adjust to your speaking style. If I have issues, I’ll say clearer or slower. If I still have have issues, I will ask again. If there are still issues, I’ll stop flowing. Please be particularly clear on voting issues or other analytical arguments. Please remember that communication is your job. If it isn’t on my flow, that is a reflection of your speaking style.
 * Speed/Clarity**

I’ll update this with time and more detail about argumentation. Please ask if you have questions.