Timmons,+Aaron

Aaron Timmons Director of Debate – Greenhill School Updated – November 2011

Jump to: Policy | LD

Lincoln - Douglas Philosophy

As of this year I have now coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for 30 years. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people. That said, at some point, most of the adults have left the building as it relates to national circuit Lincoln – Douglas debate. I find many of the things that are now common place, are antithetical to the things that I love about debate. In fact many of these practices are not educational, but also make the activity unsustainable in any meaningful way to sell to administrators, parents, new coaches or even a new generation of debaters. While you will not meet a coach more competitive, while winning is important, I feel that we have embraced a “win at all cost” model that isn’t good for the long term health of the activity.

I have taken some time to reflect on how I judge debates, and have revised my paradigm. It would behoove you to read it if I have the potential to judge you. If you don’t like what you read, strike me.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the class room. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. At this stage in my career I have no interest in being the “most preferred” judge in the pool. In fact, what I see is that many in the Lincoln – Douglas community (as opposed to policy debate); make preferences more based on personal relationships, than the relative experience/paradigmatic perspective of the critic. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. At this point I am also not shy to share those thoughts and expectations. I see myself as a critic of argument if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label. Unlike many claim to be, I am not a blank slate. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene. My experience as a coach, male, African American (et al), is something I cannot, and have no interest in doing. I WILL do my best to be an objective evaluator of your argument but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode arguments is just not true (nor do I personally think it is true for anyone. While you will not meet a coach more competitive, while winning is important, I feel that we have embraced a “win at all cost” model that isn’t good for the long term health of the activity.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the Lincoln – Douglas I judge, clarity IS a problem. I judge high level policy debates all the time and while they are quiet fast, I don’t see clarity as much of an issue with the top teams. Please understand that unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together doesn’t allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think it might. I reserve the right to yell “clearer” once or twice. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable.

2. I feel theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas, and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. That said, when a debater is engaging in “argumentative terrorism” against you, being able to make (and execute) a sound theory argument makes sense. I believe the negative does get some “flex”, that said it can’t be unlimited. The idea of reading a “counter shell” against a theory argument is one of the silliest practices I see in contemporary debate. In responding to a theory shell making arguments like “I meet”, articulating a counter interpretation (and explaining why you meet it in addition to why it best solves the standards argued by the other side), arguing the other side’s interp is bad, developing a position on why rejecting the argument and not the debater might be a legitimate response to a theory issue. Before the proliferation of theory in Lincoln Douglas I thought RVI’s were silly. They have a place in contemporary LD. I DON’T think jettisoning the case and going all in on the RVI should be the A strategy in the 1ar. While I like competing interpretations, in the end, I feel even that view is filtered through my perspective of reason/what is reasonable/the best lens for debate. Some intervention is inevitable as we judge.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a duel function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well.

5. Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated.

6. I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other teams arguments. At its foundation, debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

7. Answer questions in cross examination. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex.

8. Although I know you have figured it out, Lincoln Douglas doesn’t have a 2AC in the same way that policy does. 1AR’s that drop lots of offense on many negative positions will be rewarded with high points.

9. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are non negotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare.

B) If your opponent doesn’t have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc.

10. Many debaters have been instructed, or watched others run, “metaethics” with some success. My experience is that many debaters have a very superficial grasp of what this even means. Make sure to explain, and compare your position against the position of your opponent. A good rule of thumb is to assume you don’t win every argument and frame things in an even /if perspective.

11. I don’t like skepticism as an argument. It would be in y our best interest to not run it in front of me. While perhaps interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc is educationally irresponsible.

12. I don’t disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me. That said, I might consider rewarding those that engage in substantive disclosure on the wiki with bonus speaker points in addition to telling them the point I gave them in that debate.

13. Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seems silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card doesn’t mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument.

14. I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument wasn’t clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

15. Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

Policy Philosophy

Aaron Timmons Director of Debate - Greenhill School 30ish years coaching Lots of Tournaments and rounds this year Revised – 4/15/12

In full disclosure due to life changes I don’t cut a lot of cards these days. That said do not confuse that lack of card cutting with me not having a serious perspective on topic specific literature and what the big affs, negative positions are ect. Whether it is reading the team files, contributing to strategy, or judging and watching tons of debates, I have a good grasp on the arguments on the topic. In addition when you have coached for as long as I have, the arguments that most are running, I have judged or coached before.

Quick tips if you are looking at this just before a debate.

1. I am open to all styles and formats of argumentation. It does make sense to me that despite your argumentation or stylistic choice, you need to develop a clear thesis for the opposition to construct an antithesis. Answering questions in cross – ex is a requirement.

2. While it is popular to say that judges are tabula rasa, while I attempt to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate. The words we speak, arguments we make, methods we choose to treat opponents and other members of the community, matters. While debate is indeed a game, we need to make sure that is a game that is sustainable, and educationally sound/pedagogically defensible.

3. Speed is not a concern/problem. I will say that I believe that judging is not, nor should become, pure information processing. HOW you present your arguments is important as well for me to decode them in the way you desire. I see no reason why you can’t, to quote Bill Batterman, “speak well, fast”.

4. I like, and reward with high points, case specific negative strategies that show that the negative has actually done work on, and engaged, the literature of the affirmative.

5. Counterplans are your friend if you are negative. As an aside, I think most 2ac’s of this generation don’t understand the “power of the permutation”. Carefully worded, and framed permutations can go far to handle counterplans that are truly not competitive.

6. I feel that the negative should have some “flex” to engage the affirmative. That said I tend to think that the current vision of the negative needing an unlimited number of conditional options against the affirmative, makes no sense to me. That debate occurred in the 1980’s. The consensus at the time was that that model was flawed. I tend to agree. I am not sure what the “limit” to conditional advocacies looks like (a K and CP in the 1nc seems ok to me for example). After that, with each additional conditional advocacy advanced by the negative, the bar lowers for the affirmative to be able to lodge a very persuasive argument against such a model.

7. A dirty little secret is despite my belief that most politics and elections disads are jive, I vote negative on these arguments far more than one might imagine.

8. I very well may read evidence after the debate to resolve competing claims that are challenged. As a fair warning, I will likely not spend an hour reconstructing the debate to figure out a winner. The best debaters that I have seen, and coached, are able to talk about their evidence, COMPARE it to that of the opposition, and frame the resolution of that comparison in a way that is persuasive.

9. Don’t cross read or clip cards, or lie about what you read in the speech. After the debate I will ask for the cards I want, don’t volunteer them.

10. Topicality is a voting issue. I don’t think that a negative interpretation that is functionally “most limiting interp good”, is the best for affirmative flexibility and is self serving. While I will allow the affirmative some creativity on the aff, please don’t interpret that to mean that I don’t think some things shouldn’t be topical. Topicality is NOT genocidal as an FYI.

Other Thoughts:

Decision making paradigm:

I think that I am a critic of argument with latent policymaking tendencies. I am flexible enough to adapt to other “paradigms” to evaluate the debate as needed if they are either agreed upon, or won by a particular team. I don’t think there is “always a risk”. One must establish a link before attempting to access an impact.

Counter plans:

Counterplans must be net beneficial. I find that many debaters are confused about the difference between a net benefit (a reason the plan is bad, i.e. a disad, k’ish net benefit or case turn), as opposed to simply an advantage to the counterplan. I will listen to all counterplans, although my instinct is that many counterplans run are not truly competitive or theoretically illegitimate (condition, consultation, veto, delay, blah.blah.blah.). If an agent counterplan uses the agent of the affirmative, has the possibility to pass the entirety of the affirmative, has no solvency advocate etc, that is most likely an illegitimate counterplan. Unfortunately I vote on these counterplans far too often. The problem is that the affirmative usually doesn’t have a good grasp on theory issues, and are reluctant to draw a line in the sand. While I don’t think judging those debates are fun, well warranted, nuanced distinctions about why certain positions are good/bad as a model for debate is sometimes necessary. I think that a theory, to be fair, ought to be reciprocal. Make sure the permutation in the 2ac is clear and the same as the one in the 2ar. A text would be nice. If no text exists the debaters should agree as to what the perm is before a begin making a decision after the debate.

Kritiks

I will listen to this style of argument and if debated correctly, even enjoy this mode of debating. I deplore teams that run generic critical arguments without application to the plan/presentation of the aff. A crucial question is what is the LINK to the aff and why does something the aff does make things worse? Too many debates I see the negative gets away with, “we turn the case”, when in reality, the argument is a glorified “no solvency argument”. If there is an alternative provided, it would behoove the negative to make sure they not only understand what it is/how it functions, but making sure to have offense against it. For those that wish to run a critical aff, while having a plan/advocacy statement is my default preference do what you need to do. I will say that affirmatives that provide a critical perspective are best served to talk about the topic.

Paperless

Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are non negotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech, or at worse, IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare. B) If your opponent doesn’t have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time. C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc. D) I will not count jumping materials (if it is done in an expeditious manner) towards prep time. One free reboot (per team) also seems to be a decent norm to adopt. E) It is my expectation that teams NOT read ahead in the speech document.