Wexler,Paul

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) Previous Affiliations:Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San-Antonio-Lee, College of Wooster (Ohio), University of Wisconsin (Madison)

Updated August 2017

The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really,really bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

Skepticism bores me. I also usually think that (at least for high school students) that it would be a failure on my part to vote for it in a debate round. While it may well be the case that we can't make moral judgements about a particular class of action on a particular topic, skepticism as a whole is substantially different.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives,plans, role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- or at least why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. Providing me with a (brand name) box of tissue paper that I use up crying at the unfairness of it all by the round's end may be an exception, but I wouldn't try me if I were you. Feel free to ask me why outside the round if you care.

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence.

c) I will vote on education theory. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap', 'throw-away' or 'canned' education theory.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly bollocks fifteen or thirty seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) Finally, I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and certainly not based on a half or full sentence blurb.- I

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards.

1) I believe that **listening** is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), read the text afterwards, and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). Otherwise, we would could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for entire cases or demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity. But don't expect higher speaker points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric,context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent is taken off the reader's prep time.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)


 * ON Non Debater authored Cases**

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become the next 'Charlie McCarthy' (and the ambition of some to BE 'Charlie McCarthy' ) is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'


 * Therefore**

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non high school student write your ideas for you.

Finally, I am not opposed to student written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.


 * ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)**

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. are not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR.

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of postmodern writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point our that "the emperor has no clothes."

In round, this functions as debaters coherently explaining what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

//In any case be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.//

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, are great opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how i vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting to make changes. I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. In fairness,, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. . But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (point .1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on their nationality is racist on face.

Have fun!

Retrieved from "http://wiki.victorybriefsdaily.com/index.php/P.J._Wexler" This page has been accessed 455 times. This page was last modified 16:00, 4 November 2008. Content is available under [|GNU Free Documentation License 1.2].