Halvorson,+Seth


 * Seth David Halvorson, Ph.D**

Years in the Activity: Longer than you have been alive Coach: Bard High School Early College, Newark Conflicts: None

Experience: Lab Leader: Advanced Labs at Stanford University and University of Iowa (20+ years) Co-Author: Introduction to LD Debate, with Cherian Koshy Policy and LD Coach: Lexington H.S/Bronx High School of Science/Apple Valley High School Debater at Apple Valley High School and Macalester College NFL LD Curriculum Writer

Rule: Be nice and be smart.

I like smart, thoughtful, strategic debate, and love ideas. I also think speaking style is important. I dislike a bunch of stuff thrown against the wall to see what sticks, is dropped, and then turns out to be a “strategy.” There are really only a few good (like 4) arguments on each topic, and thus I don’t see any reason to speak quickly. The slow round is often the better round. I am hard of hearing so speak at a decent volume. I never vote on dropped arguments because they are dropped, development is necessary. A few arguments with solid internal links will always beat a bunch of blips. People have said over the years, some of them my students who are your coaches, say I vote for the smarter debater, not the tricky debater.

Good debates address the topic, using specific literature. I don’t like cases that over-emphasize meta-ethical/onto-ethical/ slash/slash considerations at the expense of the substantive nature of the debate. Thus, I often vote (most likely ALWAYS WILL) for the debater with topic specific evidenced turns over the generio-debater who argues something about the onto-poetic and Schopenhauer and never mentions the connection to the resolution. (I am happy to talk about those ideas over tea, however.) I don't think there are "pre-standards" arguments...maybe there are, but you need to convince me and the bar there is rather high. You want to resolve the problem of induction in 14 seconds? Wake up. Get to the topic.

A few years ago, prior to the TOC, someone told me that I pioneered the “scope/magnitude/long term/short term/likelihood” impact calculus in LD debate. I am not so sure that is true, as that is the basis of policy analysis and highly doubt it was me, but you should employ that impact calculus in comparing arguments to the standard. The more you do that, (provided you have the internal links to do so) the better for you. Also, I LOVE EVIDENCED INTERNAL LINK TURNS.

SOLID INTERNAL LINKS WITH A SMALLER IMPACT BEAT AN ARGUMENT WITH WEAKER INTERNAL LINKS AND A LARGER IMPACT.

I like evidence, and read widely. Read the author’s name, her qualifications, and the title and year of the publication of the card. I hate reading cards after rounds, and often only do so because I wonder if they actually say what you say they say. Or, you were too fast and didn't read this closely. Too often debaters say evidence says something, which it does not say, so you should critique evidence. (Since no one really constructs their own internal links these days)....

I don’t like theory debates, but will need a standard format for a theory violation if you will run one, and hate voting on theory without a clear in-round abuse. I hate sentence fragments, truncated forms of expression. An argument is at least three sentences long.

The activity is to teach a number of skills, professionalism being one of them. Being angry, a jerk, or offensive will result in things going badly for you. I never ever vote for jerks or mean people, even if they "won" the round. Be nice and be smart.

Note:

I am a philosopher and authentic presentation of ideas matters to me.

I don’t like the weird machismo of debate at all, never have. Never will.

Darwin had a good idea: Adapt to your environment.

Any specific questions, just ask!