Mathey,+Danielle

For almost 20 years, I have been involved in debate in one form or another. In that time, I have learned that the style of debate matters little. The essential elements of the event remain the same regardless of whether one is competing in LD in high school, or in parliamentary debate in college, or at the World Debate Championships, or in a mock trial, or even in a real life trial. Those essential elements revolve around communication. Therefore, as a coach, I try to teach my students how to use the basic tools learned through this event in a universal fashion. For most, membership in the NFL lasts for four years, but the ability to outline an argument, flow a speech, or rebut an opponent can see people through graduate school and into their careers.

When I started looking at debate, not from the perspective of a competitor, but instead from the vantage point of one who uses a debater's tools on a daily basis, I realized that the most important aspect of any debate is making the //right// argument, and making it in a clear and comprehensive fashion. Competitors often forget this and attempt to substitute volume for reason, speed for articulation, and evidence for analysis. This makes for ineffective communication and poorly prepares any debater for the later use of the skills taught by the event. Competitors also seem to forget the impact that simply making the right argument can have; some of the best debaters I have ever seen were able to logically and concisely dismantle their opponent's case in only a fraction of their allotted time. Lest the audience miss that accomplishment, those debaters sat down rather than muddy the waters by using their remaining time to pile on unnecessary argumentation and evidence.

It is the importance of the right argument that shapes my judging philosophy. I am human; please do not ask me to abandon logic and common sense at the start of the round. I will not willingly suspend my disbelief at the ridiculous or my disgust at the repugnant simply because I am judging a debate round. If a competitor chooses to take the risk of arguing the ridiculous or the repugnant, he or she must be willing to accept that it may have consequences. Consequences, after all, are part of the learning experience. In the same vein, please try to avoid making up facts and statistics, or using evidence you do not understand. Chances are that you will be caught, and the best consequence will be that it is pointed out on your ballot so that your coach is aware of your actions.

Being human also means that I am subject to the limitations of human comprehension. Please understand that while you are speaking, your judge is attempting to flow your argument; record notations concerning your speaking style, better arguments that could be made, body language, and other aspects of the debate; and fill out a ballot form so that you have the most comprehensive feedback possible. The time constraints of many tournaments limit a judge so that they must choose between giving you that comprehensive feedback by multitasking during the round, or giving you a nearly empty ballot. I choose to multitask. However, that means I can only listen so fast. Those of you who feel that debate is an avenue for practicing your budding talents as an auctioneer, please take note: I will try to flow everything you say. But I will not guarantee success. Speaking too fast, like taking an untenable position, will have consequences. The most obvious consequence is that you will make the right argument, but it will be so buried in your maelstrom of words that I might miss it. And if I do miss it, you might as well have not said it. The second consequence is more certain. If you talk faster than I can listen, I will conclude that you are a bad communicator. This conclusion will be definitively reflected in speaker points.

My dislike of talking fast does not mean that I am opposed to progressive debate. I welcome innovative approaches to a resolution as well as new perspectives, especially where they are applied well. Arguments concerning topicality, critiques, and crossover strategies from other debate styles all have their place. Make the arguments you think are effective...the ones you think are the right argument. As long as it is a fair argument, it will be heard fairly.

That said, there are a few standard questions that all debaters ask and I have not yet answered. Yes, I judge on the flow. Yes, I am okay with you keeping your own time; I also, however, am able to time the round and give hand signals as was done in the olden days before cell phones. And yes, being rude is a pet peeve. A debate round only lasts a short while. It is unprofessional in the extreme for any competitor to fail at being civil during that time. I have also noted, though, that debaters who display poor manners also tend to lack the perspective needed to avoid poor clash. Finally, because I judge on the flow, yes, I have given low point wins. Being the better debater in general will avail you nothing if you were not the better debater in the round I judge.

Good luck to all of you.