Weinhardt,+Mark

I returned to debate in 2010 after a long absence. I debated three years (1975-78) at Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Washington and four years at Dartmouth (1978-1982). I was fortunate to enjoy some success in both high school (state champion, quarters at TOC) and college (quarters, finals, and semis at 3 NDT’s; #1 and #6 at large bids). I left the activity entirely after judging on the college circuit some in the 80’s. I rejoined debate as a judge and occasional coach when my kids Ben and Edie started debating at West Des Moines Dowling Catholic High School. I attend several tournaments a year and judge a mixture of competitive levels. In real life I am a trial lawyer with my own firm (see [|www.weinhardtlogan.com]).
 * __Background:__**

My default approach is to evaluate the round as a policy maker in the real world (I believe it is called “//policy// debate” for a reason). But that default only operates if no one persuades me to use an alternative framework. Other than the kritik movement, and some different acronyms and labels for what are often old concepts, debate has changed less since the early 80’s than you think. E.g., I debated fast and can flow fast if it’s reasonably clear. But if I don’t get it, it’s not in the round.
 * __Overview:__**


 * __Specific Issues:__**

I will allow that I was skeptical of kritiks when I first returned to debate, but I have warmed to the idea since. I know the basic ones, but owing to the demands of my non-debate life, I am not well read in the literature—K debaters will want to explain more to me than they would to the judge who lives and breathes these arguments. I think K’s can provide welcome opportunities for some passion and persuasion in this activity; but too often those opportunities are underexploited.
 * Kritiks**

I believe a counterplan must be competitive with the affirmative plan; i.e., the negative must explain why I can’t do both. I am receptive to the argument, rarely made, that a counterplan cannot be topical.
 * Counterplans**

I am generally lenient with the affirmative on this issue. I think many negatives waste their time on it. But it is a voting issue if the affirmative loses it. Because I am a lawyer, I think about topicality jurisdictionally: Does //this// plan text fit within the plain meaning of the words of the topic? The intent of the framers, or the effect of the affirmative’s interpretation in other debates, or whether an interpretation is good for education, are only relevant as helping me decide what the words in the topic mean.
 * Topicality**

Unlike topicality, calling a theory argument a “voter” does not make it so—you have to give me a very good reason to decide a round on a theory position. One conditional advocacy is OK; more than that could try my patience. Particularly in a theory debate, don’t just stare at your laptop in the late rebuttals and read fast. You need to look me in the eye (when I am not flowing) and explain clearly why you deserve to win.
 * Other theory issues**

Challenges to the quality of the other team’s evidence are the biggest missed opportunity in high school debate. Not just youngsters, but very good (I mean TOC bid quality) teams routinely fail to separate what evidence actually says from the spin their opponents put on it. Doing this effectively will help you get my ballot or at least good speaker points. If necessary to resolve an issue in my mind about what certain evidence says, I will call for the evidence after the round. Where there is no challenge to evidence, however, I reserve the right to credit the label a team puts on its evidence and dig no deeper.
 * Evidence**

Here is one way in which I am still old school: During speeches and cross-ex, I allow only one team member to talk. The other debater can’t talk to his/her partner or to me. Always stand when speaking. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect. Persuasive speakers with a sense of humor do well with me.
 * You’ll want to read this**

 Here is how old I am: I debated against Bill Shanahan in college.