Baker,+Erik


 * Updated for Harvard 2018**

Hi there! I'm Erik. I'm a PhD student in the department of History of Science at Harvard. I used to be very involved in national circuit debate. I broke at the ToC as a high school senior; I have taught at big camps; I coached four debaters to the ToC when I was in college and several of my former students have taught at camps. **But I have not judged or watched a round of debate -- much less read articles or talked to anyone about the activity -- in three full years.** I have no clue what kinds of arguments are "in" right now; I don't know what the big theoretical disputes are, much less what the right position to take on them is. It seems likely there are concepts that are now important to high-level debate that I have never heard of.

So do with that information what you will. I have no moral or philosophical compunctions with the national-circuit style of debate (speed, theory in a variety of senses, and so on). I'm just out of practice and will be adjusting and somewhat in over my head.Conversely, it would be misleading to describe myself as an outsider, like a parent or local-circuit coach: the national style of debate is definitely what I'm used to and have the most experience with. But I'm not a partisan of that style, either, and I will do my best to judge other styles with an open mind.

I think that the role of adults in the activity is first and foremost educational. I don't think that debate is "just a game." To me, that entails the usual caveats about refusing to vote for offensive arguments that say that something obviously bad is good. But it also entails a more unusual preference that I want to spell out explicitly. **At Harvard there are many rounds, especially in prelims, where "circuit" and "local" debaters compete against each other. If your opponent speaks at a conversational pace, you //must// do so as well. If you don't know your opponent, ask them about this before the round.** There is nothing more excruciating than watching an experienced circuit debater spread enough debate arcana to win "technically" while their opponent looks on utterly helplessly. It makes the round a terrible experience for everyone involved. If you are a ToC-caliber debater you should be able to speak conversationally and still win.

Continuing on the theme of full disclosure: I have an expert-level knowledge of some scholarly literature (20th century and contemporary philosophy of science, the Frankfurt School, Michel Foucault) that is occasionally debate-relevant. I will try my absolute hardest not to bring any of my knowledge or convictions to bear on rounds, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that I won't hold those arguments, intentionally or not, to slightly higher-than-usual standards of rigor and accuracy.

I also have no idea what kind of speaker points it's customary to give these days! I think I used to average around a 28.5.

My only conflicted school is Evanston Township High School.

I think that's it. If you have any other questions at any point, please feel free to reach out via email at ebaker@g.harvard.edu