Schleifer-Katz,+Lee


 * Lee Schleifer-Katz**
 * Stuyvesant High School Class of 2009**
 * University of Chicago Class of 2013**

I debated for four years at Stuyvesant High School in New York City. I was an LD debater (and occasional PF debater), and competed at many local and national tournaments.

Speed is completely fine and I will be able to flow it as long as you are signposting and speaking clearly, but it should go without saying that quality trumps quantity. If you have 30 blippy arguments that are not refuted but you don’t show why they actually matter in the round, and your opponent extends one concrete argument that he shows to outweigh your 30, I will vote for your opponent.

Weighing may be the most important part of a debate round. Both debaters will have extensions and voting issues, and it is your job to convince me why your arguments are more important than your opponent’s. This is especially important when you are looking to different standards (whether it is values, burdens, or you have a priori arguments that you say supersede everything else). I will vote on anything, but it’s not enough for you to claim your opponent didn’t sufficiently respond to your a priori argument if a) your argument doesn’t make sense, b) you don’t explain what about the argument means we have to look to it before we look to anything else, or c) you don’t show why you’re winning it. On that note, PLEASE make your decision calculus clear; make it clear what you want me to vote on and why. I will not intervene and draw links for you.

While I was generally a traditional debater, as I said before, I am willing to accept and vote for any form of argumentation as long as it is logical and clear. I love hearing interesting, nuanced arguments, and I love good analogies and examples that prove them, but I will be just as quick to vote for an argument that bores me to tears if that argument is shown to outweigh the opposing ones. Additionally, I know that sometimes debaters like to run cases where they attempt to sneak something past their opponent in order to win. While I may vote off those points if they are well-articulated and are proven to be the most important of the round, I strongly prefer substantive argumentation. And remember, warrant everything. If an argument is unwarranted, it doesn’t matter.

In terms of theory, I have yet to see a theory argument that I felt actually won a debate round. No one has proven to me that their opponent’s abuse within a round meant that I had to vote for them. But that’s not to say it can’t be done. I’m open to anything.

Ultimately, I will vote based on any calculus at all, as long as you make it clear, and you show why your major arguments outweigh your opponent’s. From the perspective of a judge, the worst kind of round to watch is one where each debater constantly reiterates his own points but doesn’t deal with those of his opponent. If you did your job, at the end of the round, you will have shown me not only why your points are important, but how they interact with those of your opponent.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round.