Martin+III,+Joseph+G.


 * [[image:Me_1987_Small.jpg width="157" height="244" align="right" caption="1987"]][[image:Small_Me_Recent.jpg width="211" height="236" align="left" caption="2008"]]

Joseph G. Martin III ** **L/D and Public Forum Debate **

Affiliation: Plano East Senior High, Plano, Texas ** ** **  Tournament judge off and on since 1986, most recently 2007 TFA State in L/D, Extemp, O/O (semis), Dramatic Interpretation, and Impromptu Speaking (finals); Prelim and finals 2007 and 2008 Lone Star and 2007 LBJ District Tournament and Student Congresses. Extemp, Oratory, L/D, and Public Forum judge (including Public Forum Finals) 2008 Lone Star District Tournament.  Was also a delegate and precinct delegation captain at the 2008 Collin County Democratic Convention, and delegate at the State Democratic Convention. Member, American Institute of Parliamentarians.  ** Current Occupation: **Real Estate. Assistant, currently studying for licensure. Worst Debate Moment: **Sophomore year, having to decide to debate or coin flip with best friend to determine State Tournament Qualification. Lost the coin flip. Would not qualify for State in L/D until Senior year. But I wouldn't change the decision to flip a coin.
 * 
 * Graduation: 1986
 * Degree: B.A. Southwest Texas State University (1993), //summa cum laude;// Psychology Major and Philosophy Minor.
 * College Debate: **No. Did participate in 2007 in collegiate mock trial through the American Mock Trial Association while taking courses at Collin County Community College. Our Collin College/Brookaven College Combined team was the only community college team in the association at the time.
 * Experience & Qualifications: **1982-1986 Participated in Extemp, L/D Debate, Original Oratory, Impromptu; <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes and consistent elim round competitor; <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'"> NFL Double Ruby; 2x TFA State Extemp competitor; 1x TFA State L/D Debate competitor; 1986 District Senate Presiding Officer and Top Speaker; 1986 NFL National Tournament Student Congress competitor.
 * <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> ** In the movie //Dead Poets Society// there is a scene early on in the movie where Robin Williams character, John Keating has the students read in their book an essay on how to understand and judge poetry by a Mr. J. Evans Pritchard. The analytic essay (and yes, there really is indeed an essay much like it in existence..) removes all emotion, passion, tragedy, and triumph from poetry and instead turns understanding into a cerebral excercise. He then says of the essay:
 * <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Debate Polemic and Philosophy:
 * The Short:**


 * //"Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it! Now I want you to rip out that page. Go on, rip out the entire page. You heard me, rip it out. Rip it out! Thank you Mr. Dalton. Gentlemen, tell you what, don't just tear out that page, tear out the entire introduction. I want it gone, history. Leave nothing of it. Rip it out. Rip! Begone J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D. Rip, shred, tear. Rip it out. I want to hear nothing but ripping of Mr.Pritchard. It's not the Bible, you're not going to go to Hell for this. Go on, make a clean tear, I want nothing left of it."//**

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">My feelings regarding the difference between talking about debate and debating are strikingly similar.

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">I make no apologies for being an old-fart of the L/D debate world, as apparently I am, as witnessed earlier in the year when younger L/D judges scoffed at my talk of persuasiveness over speed, and my nostalgic visions of a time when L/D debaters worked at both style and substance. A debater can understand the theroy of debate, critical arguments, impacts, disads, topicality, framework debates, //etc//., all they want until they are a blue-in-the-face walking textbook, but if L/D is to maintain both its historical and its future relevance (to legal argumentation, advocacy, and political debate), debaters must understand that at the core L/D debate is a form of //**public**// speaking, **//public//** communication, and **//public persuasion//**. If the only people qualified to judge and **enjoy** your debates are others well-versed in the arcane jargon and theory of the debate world, then you might become the universe's greatest "debater", but you will also become a boring, uninteresting speaker who is capable of only persuading other "debaters." The rest of the world will fall asleep and not have the faintest clue what you are talking about. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'"> a. I dislike jargon and debate-speak, and believe that the best debater combines clear, concise, and intelligent analysis and use of evidence with the speaking skills of the orator and the improvisational speaker. My model of a good debater is based on the best of trial attorneys and politicians (always remember L/D honors a political debate that was done in public between two candidates for office....and of course for the longest time in our nation's history most politicians/lawmakers were attorneys.......//coincidence//?) who persuade with a natural tone and walk lay persons through the complexity of a case and its evidence. They are also crackerjack cross-examiners who do not waste their time with pointless questions and let their opponents dig their own graves with their responses. I like debaters who don’t keep reminding me I am watching “debaters”. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">b. **Of Value/Values and Criterion/Criteria (cringe):** Although it is out of fashion, I do not like values and criterion/criteria being made as their own outlined “point”. I prefer to be told overall the values a case will uphold, why the values will take precedence in the round, and how the debater’s case will show this. Notice that I speak of the plural regarding values. Cases can uphold multiple values, and I have never quite understood why debaters like to hamstring themselves to one value and one criterion (in those cases where debaters seem to confuse the difference between value and criterion/criteria for a decision). I do not call the reading of the resolution and the stating of the values and criteria to be a “point” I call it simply part of “The Introduction” and “The Conclusion.” <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">I like values that clash, and when they clash, I like a clear and passionate argument as to why one particular value (or values) supersedes another. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">As a side note, and again I may be in the minority of current L/D judges, but I am not a big fan of either side giving me the criteria for the decision for the debate as some form of objective standard. Firstly, it opens the door to the other side to turn the criteria around and win the debate using your criteria. Secondly, I almost always find either side’s criteria self-serving. Thirdly, as a judge, I define the criteria for winning the round, not the debaters. This is one of the ways debate differs from law…in law, the lawyers have law and legal interpretations to provide the criteria for a judge’s decision. As far as I know the NFL has yet to offer such “law” for debaters to use. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">c. And any debater who begins their speech by reading the resolution will get a grimace from me. I would imagine the look is similar to an English teacher who reads a paper that starts: //<span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">“This is my paper’s introductory paragraph. My thesis is that Sylvia Plath was a better poet than T.S. Elliot. I will prove my paper’s thesis by writing four more paragraphs. // //<span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">This is my paper’s second paragraph…..” // <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">d. **Definitions and Squirrels**: it is usually not necessary to define every word in the resolution, and then only key terms….if the resolution says “U.S. Congress” I don’t need Webster to tell me what that is. And I like people that use something other than Webster or Oxford for key definitions. I’m still partial to Black’s Law Dictionary. When definitions do clash, I generally support the most reasonable definition offered and defended. Cases that rely on unusual definitions or narrow readings of the resolution to create a win by tautology, although often clever, generally do not win my favor. The Spirit of Debate favors definitions that encourage the debate, not squashes it. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">e. **Evidence: **Good evidence presents verifiable facts which support an argument. Someone’s opinion (//a quote//) about something happening is not necessarily evidence that something is in fact happening or going to happen. Facts and analysis usually beats a quote. Facts, analysis, AND a good quote often trumps everything else and wins rounds. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">f. **Philosophy and Economics:** Debaters should tread carefully in these worlds. These two areas are, for me, more often mangled and misunderstood than any other. How I react to these mistakes and an opponent’s failure to point them out will depend upon my own judgment as to the context and how prepared I think the opponent should have been. A debater who misuses Kant’s //Critique of Pure Reason// and then wants his Kant point to be used as a “voter” because it wasn’t argued by the opponent well enough will not get away with it in my book. But I might be more inclined if the point involves theories of human nature and the role of government and the philosopher is Hobbes. This is only a guideline, and I do not have a line in the sand drawn for this area. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">g. **Spreading:** I have no set preference for number of arguments, etc, but usually feel anything over three or four main arguments with a couple of supporting points each starts to become unfocused. If push comes to shove and a fast-talking shotgun-shooting “spread” debater comes against a slower-speaking persuasive debater who emphasizes the main arguments and proof of those arguments, I will give advantage to the slower persuasive speaker. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">I flow but am not tied to it in deciding my ballots, and take into consideration whether a debater not addressing a point was a fault of their attention and focus, or they have intentionally consolidated arguments against a “spreader”. I understand the inherent limitations of Aff having only a 4 minute rebuttal to the Neg 7 minute Constructive. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">h. I value debaters who are respectful yet still passionate. Any debater who can incorporate humor and gentle playfulness (not arrogance and rudeness) into the round gets bonus points in my book. And any debater who knows how to turn their opponent’s own evidence, quotes, and analogies against them will go far.
 * The Long:**

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">i. **Style Issues**: Where possible I prefer debaters who speak in front of tables and lecterns, not behind them. The best set their flow pad down from time to time and speak like an Extemp speaker...flow pads are not security blankets. Eye contact matters! A debater will never persuade anyone they are not looking at. When I judge, I will spend about 95% of speaking time staring straight at the debater. Debaters will get docked points for reading cases like a script.....they should know what they are going to say well enough during case presentation to work from an outline or if they have everything writen down word for word, for god's sake I hope they don't look or sound like it. A conversational tone will go farther than most can imagine.

Though a natural, well-paced speaker who acknowledges the need to speak a little faster to cover the ground laid out by a spreader, and begs my pardon for doing it, gets my understanding and a nod of my head.
 * AND SPEED DOES MATTER**! I will never care what any other C-X or college debate-influenced judges and coaches say, in L/D it is about a debater's persuasiveness. And for myself, and for most people in the general public a debater may one day be giving a speech or presentation to, fast-talking has all the persuasiveness of a used-car salesman and telephone solicitors trying to get us to do something before we have time to realize they are full of crap. Look-up the research: people that talk very slowly with a lot of pauses AND people that talk very fast are not considered credible. And I will not tell a debater to slow down....it is their responsibility to come to the table practiced and prepared.

**
 * <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">j. Never forget: This is supposed to be fun, goshdarnit!
 * <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Garamond','serif'">August 15, 2008 **