Lachman,+Steve

Forensics Coach – State College Area High School
 * Steve Lachman**

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE I am a traditional Lincoln Douglas judge. I believe that speaking ability and persuasion matter, just as they did when Mr. Lincoln debated against Mr. Douglas.

While I like debaters to demonstrate the theoretical underpinnings of their arguments, values are not strictly abstract ideas. They are contextualized by our society. A successful argument will not be one that creates absurd results in the real world. Along that line of thought, I do not work from a tabula rasa. I test the logic of a hypothesis according to its applicability to the real world. To that end, evidence is important to support an argument, though it is probably less important than the underlying logic.

If you spread (i.e., speak very quickly), I will vote against you, no matter how convincing your arguments. The purpose of debating is to prepare students with speaking skills that will be useful in their adult lives. This is not speed chess.

I also find the use of debate lingo unconvincing. No presidential candidate ever referred to “cards” instead of the actual facts; nor did one ever talk about “extending the flow.” Speak the substance of your argument; don’t use code.

I like clash on the crucial issues of a debate, but a debater need not refute every point made by an opponent to win a round. I look at the overall persuasiveness of an argument.

POLICY DEBATE I dislike spreading. What's the point of saying all those words if you don't really want the opponent and judge to understand them? Don't bother with extinction or nuclear options unless you can really establish they are likely. All evidence is not equal. Establish why your evidence is credible. The 1 and 2 NC should be used for constructive cases, not rebuttal. That means in most cases a counterplan or a kritique. You should not bother with a thorough rebuttal during those arguments - that's what the 1 and 2 NR are for. Therefore, I won't consider issues dropped just because the Neg didn't raise them in the NC speeches. What I have been seeing lately is that the Neg is giving 4 rebuttal speeches, and by the third one, they're beating a dead horse. It makes for boring debate. I will listen to kritiques but seldom vote for them. I think there is a presumption that the resolution should be debated on its face. So, if you use a critique in front of me, you probably don't want to put all your eggs in that basket.