Kawolics,+Rich

Laurel School – Director of Speech and Debate
 * Rich Kawolics **

__ **Lincoln-Douglas Judging Philosophy** (scroll down for Public Forum Judging Philosophy) __

I started the speech and debate program at Laurel School in 2004, and have judged LD since a few years before then. I have judged an average of about 60 rounds per season, and judged LD debate at the NSDA Nationals in 2010 through 2016. I also judged the final round of IX at NSDA Nationals in 2012 and have judged final rounds in other events as well. LD is my favorite debate category, but I do request that the debate be communicative in style and professionally conducted.

Although I prefer a structure that includes value / criterion, this is not mandatory, and I will consider alternate structures. The winner will be the debater who is more persuasive, using superior logic supported by appropriate evidence to win the critical arguments in the round.

A line by line analysis in final rebuttal is OK but not mandatory or even preferred. On the other hand, please be sure to include clearly crystallized voting issues; this tells me that YOU were paying attention to the debate as well as I was.

Do not spread. Although I will not vote against you solely for this reason, if I put down my pen and stare at you blankly, that means you have lost me. I view LD debate as well organized, logical argumentation, NOT an exercise in one-upsmanship where debaters try to overwhelm each other with a multitude of disconnected, trivial blips. If I can’t follow you, I’ll have a hard time accepting your arguments. And please be respectful of your opponent; rudeness has no place in debate.

If you start speed debating and doing that freaky breathing thing, I may start laughing at you. I mean no offense by this, but no one – NO ONE – in the real world communicates this way, and you should not do so in a debate round. LD is supposed to be eloquent debate; please make it so.

Let me be very clear here. I do not think so-called "Progressive Debate" belongs in Lincoln-Douglas. I think the practice should be banned by the NSDA and the national circuit. I watched a final round at a prestigious national tournament where one debater speed-read an unintelligible mess of a case (while seated) and his opponent loomed over his shoulder the whole time and just grabbed the laptop at the end of the 1AC. That is not debate. If that's the only way you know how to debate, you had better strike me.

That said, I am open to theory and topicality arguments. Just make them intelligible. I prefer - even strongly prefer - that debaters engage on the resolution, but I have picked up a K on occasion when the debater was effective and persuasive.

Of course, I am open to your questions before the round and will tell you anything you wish to know that is pertinent to how I judge a round.

__**Public Forum Judging Philosophy **__

I judged PF the first week it was contested in the Autumn of 2002, and have judged a whole lot of PF rounds since then. If you want to know my style in general, please read the LD summary above.

Specifically pertaining to PF debate, I am all about persuasion. I will primarily weigh the most crucial arguments in a round, so I really like teams that effectively distill the debate in Summary and Final Focus. I like voting issues or something that sounds like voting issues, so a good crystallization in Final Focus will go a long way toward winning my ballot.

I hate evidence squabbles. If you claim a piece of evidence, you had better have it in the room and had better be able to produce it upon your opponents' request within 30 seconds. That said, I do not encourage evidence examinations; these should be reserved for when you suspect that a piece of evidence is being misapplied or misrepresented. Let's be honest here - good teams are familiar with most of the evidence on both sides of the resolution, so if you have a different interpretation of a piece of evidence, simply pull it out of your own file and tell me your interpretation. If you all get into a squabble about what a piece of evidence says, I will only ask to see it if that is the absolute sole focal point of the debate. (I have done that exactly once in the last ten years.) In other words, give me good, well-warranted and logical arguments. No single piece of evidence can defeat a well-crafted and well-warranted argument.

Be respectful. Male debaters, you owe respect to your female opponents, and if you get all condescending or belligerent toward a female opponent I will drop you faster than you can say "sign your ballot." Female debaters, I will grant you wide latitude to be assertive, so don't be afraid to claim your ground; you do not need to defer to your male opponents.

Finally, please remember that PF is supposed to be the lay person's debate. Even though I have been around debate longer than most of you have been alive, I enter every round with a complete blank slate and will treat every argument as if I'm hearing it for the first time. So please make arguments that can work in the true "public forum", and do not try to go all technical in your round with me.