Newton,+Janet

I am a former LD debater from Los Alamos, NM. I have been coaching LD (as well as policy, public forum and parliamentary) for 7+ years, first in Pasadena, CA, and now at Los Alamos High School. I am a humanities and debate teacher (emphasis on introductory philosophy and argumentation).
 * __BACKGROUND__**

__**LINCOLN DOUGLAS**__ **__ARGUMENT STRUCTURE/STRATEGY__** __**PARADIGM:**__

Things I appreciate: Solidly organized and clearly articulated cases that build an argument around a philosophical theme. Contentions should hold the case together, rather than blipping a series of tangentially-connected ideas.

My preference is for philosophical approaches to Lincoln Douglas. Real world examples ought to illustrate a larger philosophical point. Evidence, while important, cannot take the place of solid argumentation. Please do not ask me to extend evidence or cards across the flow—evidence and cards act in support of argumentation, so the argument can be extended but the evidence/cards cannot.

Value/Criterion are key to the debate structure—in addition to constructing the case in support of your framework, your speeches should link directly into your value structure. Winning minor points but losing the framework debate will lose you the debate. Think big.

I hate interventionist judging and will vote on what’s presented, not what ought to have been presented. I will consider all arguments but want to see considered offense and defense in presentation of those arguments. Arguing non-material abuse is annoying.

Crystallize and provide voters, please. Use your rebuttal time to cover the important issues—including value/criterion clash—and then explain how the clash in-round is resolved in light of the value and criterion for that side.

Just as addressing every single argument poorly isn’t enough to win you the round, so too is noting what the opponent dropped but failing to explain how that drop provides strategic advantage. Please provide impacts and weighing with regard to why the drops are important, the application of that importance, the impact on the rest of the round, and how these arguments ought to weigh in the round as a whole.

__**CX ARGUMENT STRUCTURE/STRATEGY PARADIGM:**__ If you need to call me something: call me Tab. Tab with an LD background. And a hatred for clash-less debates, flinging cards back and forth with no analytics, anyone saying "extend the _____" with no discussion of the impacts of said extension, snotty debaters who think they're better than anything that walks, and abusive or offensive statements.

I will evaluate whatever you put in front of me, but you had better have good explanations and warrants for anything fringe-y. And the more esoteric the argument, the slower you’re going to have to be.

Debate without clash is missing an essential part of its very definition. Please weigh your impacts so that I don’t have to weigh them for you. Tell me WHY your impacts outweigh, not just that they do.

Summation: I’m a humanities teacher well-versed in philosophy who enjoys reading it for fun. K is fun. Theory is fun. Debate is fun unless I can’t understand you or you aren’t actually debating anything.

Please feel free to ask me more specific questions before the round. See also: [Brimhall, Canyon] as a good paradigm that aligns with my thinking.

I do not like speed in LD. The format doesn't lend itself to spreading and I don't understand why anyone would feel the need. I do not believe the purpose of Lincoln Douglas is to check the al dente level of your argument pasta. Don’t throw things at the wall.
 * __SPEAKER POINTS__**

In Policy I am fine with speed so long as you provide strong, slow tags and take time to delineate warrants and impacts.

Speakers who adapt to me as a judge will receive higher speaker points than those who believe themselves too good to need to adapt. Respect is key—for yourself, your opponent, your judge and any additional audience. Failing to respect any of those parties is a strategic mistake. Don’t scream; don’t go for the jugular. Nuance and finesse are appreciated, as are humor and personality.

Exhibit intelligence, politeness and humility. Speak with clarity and a desire to communicate. Make eye contact. Act human. Weigh arguments and provide voters. Adapt.
 * __IN SHORT__**
 * __DO:__**

Make me connect the dots for you. Blip. Forget to organize your thinking. Obfuscate. Miscut or misconstrue evidence.
 * __DON__****__’T:__**

Good luck and feel free to ask specific questions before the debate!