Marzen,+Stephen

Stephen Marzen Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, Alexandria, Virginia: parent volunteer (third year) Six years policy debate: three years in high school (Ann Arbor Huron High School, Ann Arbor, MI 1978-1981) and three years in college (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 1978-1981) I have voted on almost every argument in the last few years (T, CPs, Ks), but by default I will vote for whichever side offers the policy that seems best based on whatever metrics are advanced in the round, whether utilitarian, rights based, or something else. Thus, if you want me to judge the round on performance, you will need to overcome my default policy-making assumption. By the way, a default assumption is just that – a default that applies unless and until one side argues that a different assumption should be preferred. My default assumptions on specific issues are as follows. My going-in assumption is that the topic was adopted to provide some finite but interesting number of cases to debate. I generally resolve topicality arguments by comparing the standards and definitions offered by each side. Successful affirmative teams generally offer non-idiosyncratic definitions of individual terms or contextual definitions and show that their plan falls within the reasonable scope defined. Successful negative teams generally show that particular affirmative definitions are wholly unreasonable or would render limiting words superfluous. It helps the negative if the case is a squirrel. To me, fiat follows from the word “should” in the resolution. The affirmative does not have to show any propensity that the plan will be adopted in the real world, only that it should be adopted. The negative has the same fiat power as the affirmative on its counterplan(s). In comparing policy systems, I am prepared to consider two policies whether or not one of those policies is the present system. I believe that counterplans should be competitive and see permutations as reflecting the competitiveness requirement (if a CP is not competitive, it can be permed). I am prepared to listen to arguments whether counterplans may be topical. I have also voted for conditional counterplans, but too many conditional arguments makes it difficult to develop and defend a policy in the limited time permitted for a debate round. I will entertain reasons why conditionality (or too much conditionality) should not be permitted. I have voted for Ks. At the same time, many Ks seem permutable in the sense that we can act and do well now and rethink our discourse or rhetoric at the same time. Many Ks also seem to be generic arguments than can be trotted out every negative round and even across multiple debate resolutions. Although I have voted for generic Ks and other generic arguments, I appreciate any sign that a debater is thinking and will reward round-specific arguments and analysis generously. Although I know that it’s hard to believe, we who used index cards and file drawers spoke as fast as many who now use paper and tubs. In practice, the limit on a debater’s speed is generally his or her ability to articulate rather than the judge’s ability to hear, understand, and flow an argument. With that in mind, my strong suggestions – which you and every other debater will ignore, but I’ll offer them anyway – are to: 1. Speak no faster than you articulate; 2. Include reasons in your argument labels (not “internal link”); 3. Use an outline hierarchy if you can (“and” and “next” provide a linear flow that fails to build support under your major arguments); 4. Identify the arguments to which you are responding – especially in the last two rebuttals; and 5. Explain your arguments and analyze the other side’s reasoning and evidence in addition to (or perhaps even in lieu of!) reading a few more pages from a shell. Debate is an oral activity (for the debater) and an aural activity (for the judge). If I can’t flow or understand your argument, for all practical purposes it does not exist. Cross-examination is often used to find out what the previous speaker supposedly said in his or her speech. Oftentimes, cross-examination could be more profitably used to pin down the other side on what their plan or counterplan does and does not do. Although I allow tag-team cross-examination, a side functions more like a team if each debater can answer the questions posed without multiple tags. We used to debate all four stock issues. I will listen to harm and solvency arguments and even inherency arguments. We had real plans that described what would be done in some detail. The second negative speaker generally gave a constructive speech rather than merely extended arguments introduced by the first negative. Perhaps it is now “abusive” to introduce “new” arguments in 2NC, but I will not reject new arguments in 2NC out of hand. Index cards offered much more flexibility in crafting debate-specific arguments. I will listen to and reward thinking in the round, including persuasive arguments without evidence and close analysis of the other side’s evidence.
 * Overall Philosophy and Default Assumptions **
 * Topicality **
 * Fiat **
 * Counterplans **
 * Critiques **
 * Speed **
 * Cross-examination **
 * Practice Differences Then and Now **