Jones,+Kim

Kim Jones Bellarmine  Prep Coach of LD for 31 years

Two Words: Old School.

What that means, apparently, is that I am more comfortable judging the traditional standard based value debate. It cannot be assumed I know what the value is until the student clarifies with voting criteria. That standard that must be clearly a foundation of the arguments/contentions that the student presents in a fully formed argument. An argument, as I understand it, has a clearly stated tag, a warrant (beginning with the word, "because..." also known as the reason for the claim the student has just made. )Then, the student may offer evidence, example, analogy or any other means by which to persuade the listener that his/her analysis is correct. Finally, the argument should conclude with the impact of that argument: that is, why is it important, how does  the value, etc. I'm assuming that the student would not run a "bad"value or argument, so at all times I need to know why the one side is BETTER than the other in terms of this specific topic and value standard.

I do have a bias against excessive speed, because I find most students do not have the word economy to communicate effectively, nor do they take the time, many times, to completely frame the argument. I find that many students, in fact, HIDE behind speed when they don't know what else to say. I also am not a big fan of the kritik in LD, as many I've heard were absurdly linked to the topic or the world of/conflict in the resolution. But then, I don't get out much.

Professional delivery, then, is key, as is a professional demeanor. (Debate delivery, by the way, is faster than ,say, an oratory or speech event, but every word still must be clear.) I don't understand why some debaters justify rudeness in the name of assertiveness, which is permissible. The more organized a debater is, the more I trust the student. I know s/he is not trying to hide anything, or place an argument in a place it wasn't before. The best debater argues as if my flow is in his/her hands, as s/he has listened to their opponent and answer not what s/he wishes the opponent had said, but what the opponent DID say. I don't mind hopping around the flow if the debater just let's me know where s/he is going.

If this paradigm is still unclear, the final rounds of the NFL tournament very often lend themselves to my idea of Lincoln Douglas debate.

For Policy: while primarily an LD coach/judge, I am also a stock issues policy judge. Delivery and argument comments above apply.