Zopes,+Peter

Peter Zopes Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US and World History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my ten year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though I do not agree with all I see. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.


 * The Resolution.** I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the links, warrants, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most thing that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.


 * Case and Evidence.** This is key. In LD debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development against your side of the resolution, with quality claim, evidence, and warrant. In both types of debate, arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague value statements, but supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc,) from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, academic or news sources. This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate!). Evidence used should be clearly identified when the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their value or value criterion with their case, contentions, or evidence. Specifically identify voting issues raised or dropped.


 * Speaker Points.** Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.


 * Something to keep this in mind**; In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, debaters should not dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not their job to become an expert in the technical end of debate. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them you are right. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. Keep in mind the number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!