Lewis,+James

James Lewis Affiliation: University School I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard through which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round. I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. I’d like to think that the good people at the NFL frame resolutions for which there are legitimate arguments on both sides. Neither side should come into the round trying to convince me that the other side can NEVER win the round and that ultimately that the other side should ALWAYS lose. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I frown on (but I need to be told why I should vote down) gimmicky arguments. Bad debaters avoid the burden of actually debating (or clash if you will) and attempt to avoid substantive debate on a given topic by obfuscating the issue. You might win the round but you will annoy me. And if you opponent calls you on it, I will probably side with them. Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” that you drop and I don’t put much stock in you telling me to “extend this card” if your opponent has effectively attacked your overall analysis. Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your own ideas and your own reasoning. Debate is about students debating each other, not about expert testimony. I hope that you noticed that my judging philosophy did not use much of the technical terms currently associated with Lincoln Douglas debate. Largely, it is because jargon turns me off. So please don’t drop jargon in a round and think that will effectively persuade me.
 * About Me**: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1996-2000. I attended Kenyon College, where I competed in one APDA (parliamentary debate) tournament and was a bit more successful on the NPDA circuit. I did graduate work in American history. I currently teach Western Civilization and American Civilization at my alma mater University School and coach Lincoln-Douglas debate.
 * Judging Philosophy**:
 * //FYI://** I prefer debaters who speak at a more deliberate pace, rather than trying to speed-cram a bunch of ideas down my throat. I don’t to hold it against debaters who tend towards a faster delivery and I just try my best to keep up on the flow and I daresay that I usually can do it pretty well. With that said, I do not feel any guilt at all if I miss an argument because you’re going too fast. If I don’t hear an argument it doesn’t go on the flow because you have sped through it, it won’t go on the flow.