Owen,+D.+Lynn

Director of Forensics, West Nassau High School, Callahan, FL Founder/Director, SACFL, Jacksonville, FL

I have had the privilege of being involved in competitive forensics for nearly 35 years. I was a walk-on at JMU my freshman year, and I have competed, coached, and judged ever since. (Although Policy Debate is my passion, I have coached and judged every competitive event, at both secondary and post-secondary levels.) Having seen and heard the spectrum of debate, and every possible ability level from novice through professional, I have come to appreciate the simplicity of my philosophical roots, which are:
 * 1) **I am //tabla rasa//**--I enter with no preconceived ideas about teams or their philosophies; I will never enter the debate personally.
 * 2) **There are five stock issues in every round**; I'll vote on any or all of these. The affirmative, armed with the power of **//fiat,//** must win all five issues through the 2AR in order to win the round. The negative, armed with **//presumption//**, must win at least one stock issue, through 2NR, in order to win the round. The **//burden of proof//** is the affirmative team's responsibility; making arguments which are compelling are the responsibility of both teams. Since presumption gives the negative the advantage, the round is theoretically the negative's to lose. As such, if neither team has compelled me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the tie will go to the negative team.
 * 3) **Kritiks are non-voters.** I do not believe that philosophical issues should ever outweigh policy issues in a Policy Debate round. (See #2 above.) I have never voted on a kritik; I will never vote on a kritik. If the negative kicks out of policy arguments and opts for kritiks in rebuttals, the negative has waived presumption and good sense, because I'm stating that I WILL NOT VOTE ON A KRITIK!!!
 * 4) **The definition of** //CONSTRUCTIVE// **is** " [|__constructing__] or tending to [|__construct__] ; helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement ( opposed to [|__destructive__] ); of, pertaining to, or of [|__the__] [|__nature__] of [|__construction__] ; [|__structural__] ." Nothing bothers me more than to hear two unique speeches (1AC and 1NC) and then have to listen to 6 rebuttal speeches. In order to debate the 5 stock issues (See #2 above.) properly, the affirmative's //prima facia// case should be questioned and debated. So, the "no new in the 2" will not gain any ground on my flow or my ballot, and if any negatives bother to read this, they would be advised to give me two unique constructive speeches, as opposed to an echo effect (with kritiks--see #3 above).
 * 5) **Policy Debate is an abusive activity.** Rhetorical argumentation at its finest continuously questions the speaker's motives and abilities, and as such, speakers need to understand that the questioning is a necessary evil; it should not be taken personally. I tend to deduct speaker points for complaints of abuse; ranks go down as speaker points decrease.
 * 6) **Incomprehensible speech will not be flowed.** For years, I have had to listen and to flow students who cannot be understood by John Q. Public. One day, I realized that those who were the fastest were not making better arguments or different arguments--they were just making my hands hurt, as I flowed them. (Yes, NDT does tend to help you learn to flow fast speech, so speed wasn't the challenge.) (See intro. above.) These were also the debaters that offered the most kritiks (See #3 above.); offered no clash with the true issues (See #4 above.); and generally yelled "abuse" the most often (See #5 above.) Since policy debate numbers are dwindling, due to the perception that speed is more important than rhetorical argumentation and/or logical discourse, and since the arguments tend to be similar in every round, I refuse to contribute to the insanity anymore. I love this sport, and I have invested too much into it, to take part in its destruction. I have already survived longer than many coaches and students who defended speed as a necessity to the activity's advancement; since they are no longer around to defend their perspectives, it is possible that they were not as engaged as they believed themselves to be. Thus, I will only flow the arguments that are comprehensible; if I have to interpret or shorthand them, due to a competitor's lack of skilled oratory, I can no longer be objective. (See #1 above.)
 * 7) **Overall, debate should be educational and fun.** If you are motivated through the rhetoric to be a lifelong learner, and if you enjoy the activity, because you're actually learning something about the world in which you live, you will continue to debate and learn and grow and engage. You will get up each morning, ready to do it all over again. It's a lifestyle, and it's a permanent addiction. dlo