Combs,+Timothy

Lincoln-Douglas Judging Philosophy Timothy Combs, O.P.    Fenwick High School   Though the term ‘holistic’ has become rather hackneyed as of late, I’ll nonetheless use it to describe my approach to judging Lincoln-Douglas debate. The assessment I make of each debater’s performance is holistic in the sense that his or her presentation, logic, rhetorical skill, class, wisdom, zeal and congeniality all factor into the decision. (Of these factors, logic and rhetorical skill are the most decisive.) Of course, the pro debater bears the burden of proving his or her case (and thereby supporting the resolution), while the con debater is obliged to refute that case. That being said, the inherent quality of each case is quite consequential in and of itself. I am not impressed by sophistry, and so a smooth talker whose value or contentions are intrinsically dubious is not likely to win my favor. Certainly, the one arguing in negation of the resolution has the duty of identifying the inherent flaws of the affirmative case, while the pro debater must defend his or her case against such critiques. Throughout this exchange, I weigh not only the professionalism of the presentation and the clarity of the argumentation, but also the logical forcefulness of each contention // per se //. There exists a certain degree of objective truth on each side of a resolution (yes, even in the realm of values), and that debater is likely to win who most successfully invokes the most compelling arguments from the perspective of the objective moral order (natural law). In the event that one side of a resolution more easily lends itself to a persuasive defense, each debater will be evaluated on his or her ability to identify, adduce and exploit those merits which accrue to his or her respective side of the issue. That is to say, there is no reason that being on the weaker side of an argument (provided the resolution has been prudently chosen) should inhibit one’s ability to appeal to that portion of the position which is in fact logically and morally defensible. This is a verbose way of saying that I’m quite willing to award a win to a position I disagree with if the speaker has skillfully illustrated its authentic merits. Indeed, it is all the more impressive when one is able to mount a strong case for a weak position, provided that logic and sound moral judgment are not undermined in the process. I adhere to the standard procedural rules of Lincoln-Douglas debate, such as the illegitimacy of introducing new contentions after the constructive speech and the necessity of critiquing each contention in the 1AR or the NC. Finally, I admire and applaud each contestant’s commendable efforts!