Lewis,+Timothy

I am currently the Academic Director for the National High School Debate League of China, a public forum debate league. I have edited a textbook for that organization entitled Speak Up: How to Debate in the Public Forum Style. I also have experience coaching award winning teams in extemporaneous and parliamentary debate, and am familiar with the basics of policy and Lincoln Douglas debate.

First, let me tell you my debate pet peeves:

1.) Overly technical definition debates-> I find that debaters often use definition debates to avoid discussion of the more significant issues of the round, particularly ones they think they might lose on. If your opponents squirrel the definition, then yes, call them out on it. If their definition is reasonable, though, then address their contentions directly.

2.) Bad evidence readings-> I would much rather hear your arguments in your own words, and not in the words of a quoted professor from Champion Briefs. Have the source ready, and cite information that you find, but please deliver your own original analysis.

3.) Not reading from a podium-> If you have a podium or lectern available to you, please use it! I like it when teams make a small effort to command the room.

Now here's how I actually decide rounds:

1.) If both teams agree on a framework and/or voter issues for the round, I will generally use them to guide my ballot.

2.) I do not give substantial weight to arguments unless they are carried throughout the round. If your argument has great evidence in the constructive speech, I won't weigh it in my decision unless it is extended to later speeches.

3.) I am open to just about all types of arguments provided they are logically defended. I do always enjoy a good impact turn or a deep framework debate, though.

4.) Most evidence debates, in my experience, end up a wash. If you want to win on evidence, please engage directly with the source, break apart its flaws compared to yours, and then impact the issue in the round. No appeals to authority please!