Rosen,+Jeremy

I have been on-and-off involved in debate for nearly 30 years. This is my first year assisting with the Harvard-Westlake debate team. I previously have coached debate for one year at Cornell University (CEDA) and for one year at the John Thomas Dye School (middle school). I also debated in college at Cornell for four years (CEDA) and for four years (policy) in high school at the Harvard School (now Harvard-Westlake).

Good debaters will not only win their arguments by rebutting the other side’s points, but then explain why winning a particular argument means they should win the debate round. Too often, debaters get lost in the weeds of specific arguments without putting those arguments into context for the judge and provide the judge with a ready way to weigh the debate and decide who wins.

I tend to think evidence is extremely important, but that does not mean debaters should mindlessly read evidence and stop thinking. The best debaters will use their evidence to show why they should win. Smart analysis is also important. I have no problems voting for theory arguments, topicality or critiques, but the debaters must explain why whatever framework they are advocating for trumps the framework put forward by the other side.

In the end, I do my best to vote based on how the debaters debate the arguments and not based upon my own preconceptions. The messier the debate, and the less the debaters given me coherent reasons to vote for them, the more I will need to intervene to figure out who wins. In that scenario, my preconceptions will become more dominant in the decision-making process. All things being equal, I tend to default to a policy mindset where I compare the plan to any counterplan and weigh the advantages against the disadvantages.

You can feel free to ask me questions prior to the round. If you have general questions that might be pertinent to your pref sheet, please contact Mike Bietz - mbietz@hw.com