Lorenzen,+Jon

Background: I debated for Crespi Carmelite (Encino, CA) in high school; for college I debated for 4 years for the University of Southern California, policy and CEDA); I have coached policy and CEDA at Occidental College and the Claremont Colleges. I am currently a corporate entrepreneur.

I look at debate as a persuasive activity. I am of the old school that topicality, inherency and significance are voting issues but merely asserting the argument, even if I agree, will not get you the ballot. The debater has the responsibility of identifying what in the resolution or the responibilities of the Aff is met or not met and persuading me the basis for which I must vote. I will evaluate the round based on both the rational and emotional issues. I will vote on the issues on the page, the importance the debaters give to those issues, and the impact that should be expected from my decision. In the final rebuttals I want to hear what issues you are winning, what issues you are abandoning (it is OK to tell me that one issue outweighs another and I need to focus on the more vital one), and the impact of the argument in the larger picture. I do not take lightly to people being offended or ridiculed.

Presumption: It is the responsibility of the Aff to provide me a reason and means to adopt the resolution. Therefore, the status quo is the counterweight. The Neg need not defend the status quo; they only need to argue the answers provided for the round. It should not be misunderstood that its the Aff vs. anything but the Aff. The Neg is free to argue that the sataus quo is what it is with its failures and that the Aff assumes greater adverse impacts. If the Neg. moves drastically away from the status quo I see that as a counterplan.

Speed: As I said before, I believe that debate is a persuasive activity. As long as you can make a clear, concise arguements feel free to let it rip. However, if you want to give me 10 arguments with three word tags and expect me follow, you would be misdirected. If the argument is important enough for to be spoken, I should have enough time to write it down. If its not important enough for me to write it down, its not an important issue and the debate cant be won in the end by merely carrying it down your flow if its not on mine. I also subscribe to the element of emotion in debate. Surely, in a politcal parlance, the use of empathy, sympathy, anger etc. have a crtical place in the discussion. Debaters should be aware that I am a human decider who employs many criteria and not a computer designed to be unemotional.

Signposting/Tags: The whole concept of point and counterpoint means that it is the responsibility of the debater to tell me what specific argument you are replying to. I attempt to get the argument down and listen to the supporting evidence. If the argument is on the evidence the debater must refer to the argument that it supported. If you want to group arguments, ID the pool of arguments and then make your arguments. Do not just throw out on a generic word and start responding. I dont like jumping around in constructives, but understand the need in prioritising rebuttals.

Counterplans: I find counterplans to be a very problematic, but I am not opposed. If the Neg argues that lives saved will adversely impact the environment or economy and the counterplan saves those or other lives then the Neg has to also accept the adverse impacts as well. Therefore, for the Neg to win a counterplan it had best be reinforced with advantages that outweigh any of the adverse impacts.

Kritiks: These need to articulated clearly to me as to why I must consider them in my decision. While they are acceptable within the round, it is the responsibility iof the debater to persuade me why.

Cross-Ex: There is a reason why this activity is a one-v-one activity. It is time for clarification, not a time to make or explore future argumentation. It is not a time to be evasive; a good argument is one that a debater can defend in bright light; obversely, an arguemnt that can not survive light, should have not been issued. Although I do not flow cross-ex, the veracity of the debater is evaluated.

Pre-debate: Once everyone is in place, you can ask me about judging philosophy. I admit I have ideosyncrasies and a find that letting everyone know what they are makes for a better debate.

Post-debate: I am not known for asking for evidence after a round. However, if both teams have made a contention about its context I may ask to review it. Otherwise, it is the responsibility of the debater to introduce it into the round in a means that is coherent.

Post-round Disclosure: I will follow whatever the tournaments's rules and regulations regarding disclosure. If the tournament allows, I will disclose at the end of the round with a brief justification. I try to write extensive ballots/explanations, so I do not want to rehash the round in the room.