Meisenheimer,+Donald

My experience in debate dates to the mid-1980s when, in high school, I competed in state-level Lincoln Douglas debates in South Dakota. Since then I have taught advanced composition at a California university with an emphasis on the value of argument structure: a clear hook, a roadmap or thesis, argument points tied back to the thesis, and evidence for all claims. I also teach oral presentation skills with a focus on clarity of structure, effective use of time, voice volume, eye contact, pacing, and so on. I bring all of these expectations to any debate I judge. I respond to a clear sense of structure from the outset--some sense of what will be argued in what order--and then follow-through on that promise, including explicit transitions that alert me to the significance of claims to the overall argument. Without evidence of some kind, claims are much less convincing to me; that said, common sense and sound use of logical reasoning are also extremely important. To that degree, a rapid piling on a series of ill-supported or poorly reasoned points without any structure or sequencing apparent in their introduction will persuade me much less than a few points supported by evidence and reasoning all tied together to form a whole.