Summerfield,+George

Current school affiliation: Assistant Coach Oak Park-River Forest High School (Oak Park, IL) -- Beginning 2011

Debated at: Ann Arbor Pioneer High School (Ann Arbor, MI) -- 1973-76 U.S. Naval Academy - 1979-81 King's College (Wilkes-Barre, PA) - 1981-83

Rounds judged this year (2011-2012/Space): 0

General: The arguments commonly made in interscholastic debate have obviously changed in the 35 years since I debated in high school. However, the general theory behind the activity has remained comfortably familiar - convincing a judge that the arguments a team makes are, for one reason or another, more meritorious than those made by the other team. Having said that, I am in the process of becoming familiar with the arguments that have developed over the last few decades, such as critiques, which tended not to be argued during my high school and college tenures.

Paradigm: There is little of real world value in debate, per se. Thus, it is important to provide some context for the judge useful in evaluating the merit of the arguments made by the respective teams. Examples of such paradigms are legislative, judicial, philosophocal, etc. This is not to say that an extraordinary amount of time need be devoted to this issue. However, if one can convince a judge of the general criteria that should be used in resolving disputes raised in a round, that can be a powerful tool in swaying a judge.

Topicality: Obviously a voting issue. Debate becomes intellectually meaningless if the affirmative can win simply because it is allowed to argue a plan that is far afield of the topic, catching the negative unawares. I will listen to any theory of construction (how the constituent terms are, and should be, defined). Evidence on topicality generally consists of competing definitions. It is helpful if the judge is provided with some tools for determining which definition is best.

Stock Issues: Big in my day, not so much any more, at least not in the form with which I was familiar. Having said that, there seems to be elements of stock issues that have survived to the present. For example, the affirmative must justify some reason for changing the status quo, as, presumptively, change is unknown, and therefore undesirable. Generally, the desirability of change should be shown in terms of some quantifiable advantage over the status quo, in addition to the disadvantages attendant to the plan adoption. I am open to qualitative advantages, but there would need to be some additional explanation as to why the subject quality is worthy of protection in light of the presumption against change.

Counterplans: I will listen to anything comprising a better (in a quantifiable sense) way to do something. I am generally not compelled by facile counterplans, such as "study then do." Presumably, a de facto study has already been performed, thus the existing evidence produced by both sides on the topic. Bonus points to affirmatives that can run solid, unique DA's to counterplans. The goal is to pile up more relative advantage, in whatever manner that can be done.

Critiques: Like any other argument, there needs to be explanation behind the framework being urged. This ties into my comments on "paradigm." Convince me that you have, for whatever reason, the better framework for evaluating the issues raised in a round, and you generally win.

Rebuttals: By the time the round progresses to rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, the arguments should be fairly well focused. Let me know what is truly left in the round, and why you win on those issues, as opposed to piecemeal, disjointed responses to individual arguments.

Spreading: Perfectly fine, as long as the presentation does not devolve into a white noise hum.

Questions: I always disagreed with the lack of two-way communication between judges and debaters when I was in high school and college. I am glad to learn that judges can now explain what they like and why they vote the way they do. Feel free to ask.

Evidence: I am a lawyer. The ability to resolve evidentiary disputes is, therefore, near and dear to my heart. Give me decision rules for such resolution.

Last update: November 16, 2011