Thorn,+Josh

I debated for four years at La Salle, and coached the La Salle team for my 4 years in college. I'm now in law school.

I used to have a fairly detailed description up here of my thoughts on the various types of arguments run in policy debate, which stressed that debate is an educational and truth seeking activity and that I prefer reasonable and rational arguments over silly and shoddily-constructed ones. However, I also recognize that my preferences about what types of arguments I like will never have more than a very limited impact on the types of arguments debaters will actually run in front of me: everyone has their preferences, and absent me saying "I will never ever vote on X argument" (which seems like unfair intervention in most cases anyway) debaters will probably default to the arguments that //they// feel most comfortable running. And that's perfectly fine. However, it did render what I had written up before more or less superfluous. So instead I've replaced it with a list of things that I often see happen in debates that are off-putting/detract from the debate. You should probably avoid doing these things in front of me.

Other than the following, just try to run what you're comfortable with, have fun, warrant/impact all your arguments, and be respectful to your opponents.

Things that really grind my gears:


 * Having your 1AC on the wiki does not make your affirmative predictable.


 * Likewise, disclosing your 1AC text and advantages before the round does not make you predictable.


 * Trying to sneak “and reject the aff” or “and don’t do the aff” into your alt or CP text. Especially when you then try to use this as an argument against the perm.


 * Severance theory being the primary or only answer to the perm on Ks. If the perm is ‘do both’ or starts off with the phrase ‘do the plan and…’ you will never convince me to vote on severance theory.


 * Walking in and out of the round during speeches, especially if done during your opponents' speeches.


 * Your teammates or coaches walking in and out of the round, particularly in the middle of speeches. Coaches and teammates: please don't do this.


 * Trying to go faster than you physically are able. Clarity is more important than speed.


 * Stealing prep time. Don’t.


 * Using an inordinate amount of time to flash. Don’t. This is exactly the same as stealing prep. The timer stops when the flash drive is out of the computer.


 * Not hard numbering your line by line. If you want me to vote for you, you want me to flow you as best as I can. If you want that to happen, you want to hard number. Saying “off 2AC 1” lets me know exactly where you want me to be on my flow. Saying “and next” does not.


 * Interrogating the other team about their 1AC before the round has started. Disclosure is all well and good, but it only goes so far. Cross-x exists for a reason.

It's also probably worth knowing that I won't say 'clear' or signal to you in any way if you are being unclear. I think that it is entirely the responsibility of the debaters to ensure that they are communicating clearly and effectively, in the same way that the content of speeches is also the responsibility of the debaters. I don't see how a judge saying 'clear' is any less of an intervention than saying 'I don't like that argument, don't make it and move on' - both are shaping the round in a way that wouldn't have happened absent the judge speaking.