Bores,+Alex

I debated for Hunter College High School in New York City for four years. I graduated in 2009. I achieved a winning record at NFL Nationals, TOC’s and the Grand Catholic Forensic League Nationals.

1. Don't go crazy fast if you can't be clear. I won't vote on speed, but if I cannot understand an argument, I will not vote for it. 2. No kritiks. 3. No presumption for either side. Each has an equal burden: to prove their side of the resolution generally true. This means that parametricizing will usually hurt you. 4. Theory is usually defensive, not offensive. Additionally, theory does not need to be made in a typical shell format, but it would not hurt if it were. 5. I will intervene to enforce these rules.
 * Paradigm in Brief

If you want 30 speaks, speak at a pace not much faster than conversational speed, resolve the value/burden debate well, extend claims, warrants, and impacts, and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

For an explanation of the above rules, and a more detailed paradigm, read below.

****Full Paradigm**

When deciding how to judge a round, most people start with the premise of being non-interventionist or //tabula rasa//. When I debate or judge, I find that it is impossible to be a blank slate. Most "non-interventionist" judges bring into a round many interventionist ideas, including presuming negative or affirmative, requiring theory arguments be made in the typical shell format, yelling clear to slow debaters down, requiring voting issues, preferring a few authors or styles of argumentation, requiring arguments to have claims, warrants and impacts, or simply requiring arguments be made in English. Some of these ideas I disagree with (presumption) and some I agree with (English), but the point is that no judge is truly non-interventionist, and claiming to be //tabula rasa// is usually just a way to validate one's specific preferences. In fact, I doubt any debater would want a strictly tabula rasa judge: someone who would accept as valid a list of unwarrented claims made in any conceivable way and with little relation to reality. Debaters expect their judges to bring in some knowledge of the world and about how debate works. A small amount of intervention is in fact a good thing.

As a judge, I start with a different premise: debate is not about the judges. Debate is an activity for high school students, not for the college students or parents who judge them. As such, I do not see why any judge has the right to say specifically what they want in a round, when he/she is merely part of the round so that two high school students can learn. Ideally, every judge would be exactly the same, and every round would have the perfect result. It may not be possible, but it is worth striving for.

I could probably design a style of debate that I like more than Lincoln-Douglas, but I am not judging my hypothetical style of debate, and as such I do not try to shape a debate into what I like to see. When I judge LD, I follow the description of LD given by the NFL (although if I am at a CFL tournament I follow their rules instead). If you need a quick refresher, they are posted below. I will try my best to stick to these guidelines, and I would like the same from the debaters. I know its long, but it is worth the read if I am your judge. (I have put a few notes italicized in parenthesis.) = LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE DESCRIPTION = The hallmarks of Lincoln Douglas debate include: 1) Parallel Burdens 2) Value Structure 3) Argumentation 4) Cross Examination 5) Effective Delivery //- Burden of proof:// Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of his/her side of the resolution as a general principle. As an LD resolution is a statement of value, there is no presumption for either side. //- Burden of clash:// Each debater has an equal burden to clash with his/her opponent’s position. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent. //- Resolutional burden:// The debaters are equally obligated to focus the debate on the central questions of the resolution, not whether the resolution itself is worthy of debate. Because the affirmative must uphold the resolution, the negative must also argue the resolution as presented. // Definitions: // The affirmative should offer definitions, be they dictionary or contextual, that provides a reasonable ground for debate. The negative has the option to challenge these definitions and to offer counterdefinitions. //Value Premise/Core Value:// A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. that serves as the highest goal to be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved. In general, the debater will establish a value which focuses the central questions of the resolution and will serve as a foundation for argumentation. //Value Criterion/Standard:// In general, each debater will present a value criterion (a standard) which the debater will use to: - explain how the value should be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved. - measure whether a given side or argument protects, respects, maximizes, advances, or achieves the value. - evaluate the relevance and importance of an argument in the context of the round. The relationship between the value premise and the criterion should be clearly articulated. During the debate, the debaters may argue the validity or priority of the two value structures. They may accept their opponent’s value structure, prove the superiority of their own value structure, or synthesize the two. //- Written communication:// Cases and arguments should be constructed in a manner that is organized, accessible, and informative to the listener. The debater should employ clear logic and analysis supported by topical research. //-Verbal communication:// The debater has the obligation to be clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. Additionally, debaters should strive for fluency, expressiveness, effective word choice, and eloquence. //- Non-verbal communication:// The debater should demonstrate an effective use of gestures, eye-contact, and posture. Throughout the debate, the debaters should demonstrate civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
 * Event description.** Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. Debaters are encouraged to develop argumentation based upon a values perspective. To that end, no plan (or counterplan) will be offered by the debaters. In Lincoln Douglas Debate, a plan is defined by the NFL as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. (//You can say, for example, that a society should give its citizens health care through a single-payer plan. You cannot say that the US should implement a single-payer system in which we increases taxes on the rich by 15% over five years and cut military spending starting in 2011)// Neither the affirmative nor negative side is permitted to offer a plan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a general principle. Debaters may offer generalized, practical examples or solutions to illustrate how the general principle could guide decisions.
 * 1. Parallel Burdens.** No question of values can be determined entirely true or false. This is why the resolution is debatable. Therefore neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof. No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
 * 2. Value Structure.** The value structure (or framework) is established by the debater to serve two functions: a) to provide an interpretation of the central focus of the resolution, and b) to provide a method for the judge to evaluate the central questions of the resolution. The value structure often consists of a statement of the resolution (if affirming), definitions (dictionary or contextual), the value premise (or core value), and the value criterion (or standard). This structure is commonly but not always employed.
 * 3. Argumentation.** Because Lincoln Douglas debate is an educational debate activity, debaters are obligated to construct logical chains of reasoning which lead to the conclusion of the affirmative or negative position. The nature of proof may take a variety of forms (e.g., a student’s original analysis, application of philosophy, examples, analogies, statistics, expert opinion, etc.). Arguments should be presented in a cohesive manner that shows a clear relationship to the value structure. Any research should be conducted and presented ethically from academically sound and appropriately cited sources.
 * 4. Cross-Examination. ** Cross-examination should be used by the debater to clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments in the round. (//I have no problem with clarifying questions during prep-time or asking to see a case, as long as there is a full cross-x////)//
 * 5. Effective delivery.** Lincoln Douglas debate is an oral communication activity that requires clarity of thought and expression. Arguments should be worded and delivered in a manner accessible to an educated non-specialist audience.(//please be careful about speed and, more importantly, clarity)// This encompasses:

**LINCOLN **** DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGING GUIDELINES ** 1. A decision SHOULD //NOT be based upon: a. Personal bias.// A judge’s preference for a side of the resolution or a topic bias should not enter into the decision. A judge must decide the round based on the arguments presented in that round. Objectivity is the primary responsibility of any judge. //b. Partiality. // The judge should not be influenced by the reputation of or relationship with the debaters, schools, or coaches. If a situation arises where impartiality is in doubt, the judge has the responsibility to report this potential conflict of interest to the tab room. //c. New arguments introduced in rebuttals.// The judges shall disregard new arguments introduced in the rebuttals. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the answering of arguments introduced by opponents. (//weighing arguments is, I believe, new evidence for points already introduced, and as such is fine (and encouraged) in the last speeches).// 2. A decision // SHOULD BE //  based upon the consideration of any or all of the following questions:  // a. Burden of proof. //  Which debater has proven his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle by the end of the round? No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. A judge should prefer quality and depth of argumentation to mere quantity of argumentation. A judge should base the decision on which debater more effectively resolved the central questions of the resolution rather than on insignificant dropped arguments. //(This, along with the resolutionality condition below, means I will rarely vote for someone based on a theory argument. I want to vote on the resolutional arguments themselves)// // b. Value structure. // Which debater better established a clear and cohesive relationship between the argumentation and the value structure? ( // as stated earlier, a standard value premise/value criterion is not required, but some method way for evaluating the round is) //  // c. Argumentation. // Which debater better presented his/her arguments with logical reasoning using appropriate support? Which debater best utilized cross-examination to clarify, challenge, or advance arguments? // d. Resolutionality. // Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution?  <span style="-webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: yellow; font-weight: normal;"> // e. Clash. // <span style="-webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffff00; font-weight: normal;"> Which debater best showed the ability to both attack his/her opponent’s case and to defend his/ her own? // f. Delivery. // Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear, and professional manner? A judge should give weight only to those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him or her as a judge. //<span style="-webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: yellow;">Point Scale: //<span style="-webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: yellow;"> Below Average: 20-21 Average: 22-23 Good: 24-26 Excellent: 27-28 Outstanding: 29-30 <span style="-webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: yellow;">(//Don’t fear this scale. I interpret average as average of all debaters out there, not average at the tournament. I usually give between 25-30, assuming you do a somewhat decent job.)//
 * []**

If you have any other questions (and by other questions, I mean questions not answered here) feel free to ask me before the round or email me at alex.bores@gmail.com.