Palmer,+Eric

Eric Palmer
I debated for Howland (OH) on both local and national circuits. Currently I study philosophy at Pomona College, and coach for Mountain View high school. I have previously coached for Des Moines North high school. I am also director for the National Symposium for Debate (NSD), and have previously taught at the National Debate Forum (NDF). As a general rule, arguments, not presentation or my personal opinions, determine to whom my ballot will go. Given that there are numerous mutually incompatible approaches to the evaluation of arguments, it is imperative that debaters establish some calculus through which I should weigh arguments. This need not be a traditional value/criterion model, though of course I am open to the use of this model and will default to it if standards debate becomes a focal point of in-round discussion. If you expect me to view some arguments as automatically sufficient to win the ballot (i.e. "a priori" or "on face" in current jargon), then you must provide some explanation as to why that argument precedes or outweighs all other issues in the debate. I will not vote on so-called "a priori" issues simply because they are labeled as such. In the absence of explicit decision procedures set by the debaters, I will attempt to identify procedures implicit in the debate and attempt to apply them reciprocally. I do not have issues with speed, though I will make it readily apparent to you if you are unclear. One caveat to this claim is that I have a very low threshold for newness in the rebuttal speeches. If an argument is briefly and quickly stated without sufficient explanation of its logical function, I will treat later explanations of the truth or significance of that argument as new. Additionally, if you are reading in excess of 300 words per minute, I would prefer it if you slowed down on tags and author names. It is perhaps worth noting that I prefer when speed is used for the sake of substance. I am open to so-called "critical" arguments or those derived from Continental philosophy, but I am not particularly friendly to deliberate obfuscations with abstruse rhetoric (my language should convey my meaning). I strongly prefer that "critical" argumentation be intelligent, well-warranted, and accessible (I am at odds with unwarranted descriptive claims in particular, for instance, to argue that capitalism has effect X, an Althusser card asserting "capitalism has effect X" isn't good enough. You need an explanation of why that effect occurs, and probably some examples which bear out the truth of the evidence). In general, I do not view discourse arguments as persuasive, since I do not think judges are in the business of "endorsing" arguments, but I will evaluate such arguments as they are presented. Topicality or other theory positions are an acceptable and necessary part of debate. That said I feel that most topicality debates rest on tenuous claims or double turns. Topicality arguments should generally include the four standard parts of a position (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters). I am receptive to arguments from reasonability as replies to theory. In general, I assume that advocacies should be textual (for standard affirmative cases, the resolution is generally sufficient) and should specify terms. This applies to plans, permutations, and counter-plans. The use of multiple counter-advocacies or counter-plans is probably illegitimate, and I will be sympathetic to theory responses. Topical counter-plans probably do not make sense in LD, though you might conceivably argue otherwise. Analytic arguments generally do not require evidence, but most empirical arguments do. Empirical evidence should offer causal analysis which articulates why a particular effect occurs and what will make it continue. Empirical scenarios should have brinks. I will not evaluate blatantly unwarranted arguments, and I do not necessarily treat extensions as knock-down arguments. It is possible to weigh the risk of one extension against the risk of another in spite of drops. While I try not to intervene at all at the decisional level, this doesn't mean I do whatever you tell me to do during the round (i.e. I don't do 30 speaks overviews or whatever else). Respect is a two-way street. I usually expect debaters to be respectful to one another and judges, and I also believe that judges have an obligation to treat debaters in a respectful manner. Consequently, I am willing to discuss the issues of a debate in a prompt and complete fashion. This attitude is necessary to assure transparency and accountability in debate, features of any genuinely educational and competitive environment. Additionally, judges have an obligation to consistently and fairly evaluate arguments, and to exhibit tolerance for different perspectives and argumentative innovations. Judges are students as well as instructors, and I am very willing to hear what you have to teach.