Mancuso,+Steve

Steve Mancuso 25 years, college debate coach PrincetonHigh School


 * GENERAL PERSPECTIVE**

My view is that policy debate is primarily focused on training people in every-day decision-making skills. Your theory arguments on either side will be better received if they are grounded in that paradigm of debate.

By “every-day decision-making” I don’t mean play-Congress, or play-President. In debate we simulate taking government action as a means of learning how to make every-day decisions: what cars we drive, what jobs we take, what food we eat etc. An important byproduct of this process is that it helps us form opinions about issues of public policy that may be relevant in deciding which candidates, government actions, local/personal actions we want to support and/or work toward. That’s fundamental to me as well.

Basically, I do have certain argument preferences, as would anyone who has judged for over 20 years (or for 20 minutes for that matter), but they almost never end up playing a role in my decisions. I vote against my debate preferences all the time.


 * FAMILIARITY WITH THE SPACE TOPIC**

I've judged all year on this topic. I've researched quite a few arguments.


 * CRITICAL ARGUMENTS**

It’s fair to say I have a preference for policy comparison, but I’ve voted frequently for teams that make well-reasoned arguments for consideration of critical positions, both within that framework and outside. I tend to be more receptive to critical arguments that are specific to the plan/policy action or the advantages. If forced to choose, “comparison” is probably a more important part of my debate predisposition than “policy”.


 * TOPICALITY/A-SPEC**

My predisposition is that the purpose of the topic is to provide prior notice to direct our debates into a somewhat limited discussion of an important current event. I’m more inclined than most judges to view an affirmative interpretation as “good enough” even if it isn’t the best (narrowest) interpretation in the debate. Don't even bother with A-Spec unless the affirmative's agent is less specific than the agent in the resolution.


 * ADVOCACY-INCLUSION**

I prefer a view of debate where the negative is forced to defeat the affirmative in its sum, not just one word, phrase or part. To me, that’s just a matter of fairness. But I end up voting for advocacy-inclusive strategies frequently (whether critical or policy).