Stanislaus,+Shashika

Shashika Stanislaus Lincoln-Douglas Judging Paradigm __Background__ Currently, I volunteer as a part-time Lincoln-Douglas coach at Valparaiso High School in Valparaiso, IN. Under the tutelage of Katy Robinson, Chriselle Waters, Dr. Larry Stuber, and Jason Baldwin, I participated in LD debate from 2002-2006 for Valparaiso High School on both the Indiana and national circuits. Upon graduation, I attended Villanova University where I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy.

__Emphasis__ As far as I’m concerned, LD debate is values-oriented debate. Therefore, the majority of argumentation should be focused on how a point (a) achieves one’s own standards or (b) effect’s the opponent’s standards. The debater who convinces me of their superior value and value criterion within the realm of the resolution will win my ballot. That means, though, that I have no problem giving the ballot to an inferior debater that may lose the majority of the arguments but still substantially wins the values clash. In other words, it is not uncommon for me to award low-point wins.

In terms of argumentation, I expect debaters to give roadmaps prior to their speeches and signpost throughout their rebuttals. Dropping arguments will negatively effect the likelihood of you winning the round, although I give leniency to the affirmative because of its time constraints. Regardless, bringing in new arguments in your final speech is not acceptable. You are allowed to provide additional examples or answer an opponent’s inquiry, but I will not consider any new arguments.

I am a strong proponent of the idea that debate is a competition between the participants, not an activity between debaters and judges. As a result, although I may personally dislike your cases and see all of its flaws, I will not consider those points unless the opposing debater brings them to my attention. The only exception I make to this rule involves misrepresentations of philosophical theories. In debate, there is good faith placed on opponents to properly represent philosophic theories they use in their case. Also, I do not expect debaters to know every single philosopher. Thus, if I catch debaters lying or misrepresenting these theories, I will count it against them on my ballot.

Aside for admissions, I do not consider points made in cross-examination when I evaluate the round. If you make a solid point during this period, make sure to reiterate it during your subsequent rebuttal.

Clarity of speech, though considered when awarding speaker points, never plays into my final decision. Considering this is debate, and not speech, the debater who convinces me of the validity of his case will win my ballot. That being said, speed-reading is HIGHLY discouraged. If I can’t understand your argument, I can’t consider it in my evaluations.

On a final note, I believe that debate is meant to be a discourse of ideals leading to a greater understanding and, ideally, the truth of the resolution. Civility between opponents is a necessity. I will not tolerate the bullying or demeaning of an opponent during cross-examination or rebuttal. As noted earlier, the manipulation of facts and theories is unacceptable as well. Finally, deference should always be shown to the judge during disagreements.