Clemens,+George

He was appointed to the [|LD Rules and Recommendations Committee] for the [|National Forensic League] in 2006. [[|edit]]
 * George Clemens** is the director of forensics and director of Lincoln-Douglas debate at [|Lake Highland Preparatory School] in Florida.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
2014-2015

The Majority of this is the old paradigm, which having looked at it, hasn't really changed much. Framework: Truth Statement vs. Comparative Worlds: I think that solid framework for each is necessary. I will buy either world as long as it is warranted well. I will likely not vote on Theory related to these interpretation, but theory-related arguments that are used to relate a counter-interpretation are useful. I don't want to vote on theory because both truth-statement and comparative-world shells should be designed for a mere interpretation of the round, then shouldn't be the end-all to the round. The Alternative World Debate/No Solvency Args that Negs will place as overviews of the AC can be beat back with really solid AC framework. (I don't think that this is as much of an issue anymore)

Theory: I was not initially a fan of theory, but I have warmed to it with a few disclaimers. I believe theory has a place in a debate where there is clear abuse (one instance, multiple a prioris, 5-fold burden structure with no clear reciprocal work, etc.) I have and will vote on theory if it is meant to check squirrely stuff. I am not a fan of frivolous theory that is designed to merely suck the life out of what would have been a decent substantive debate. For the same reason that I'd vote off of theory if it is designed to check abusive case-construction practices, **I will vote for a well-articulated RVI shell (or not even a great one) that beats back stupid time-suck theory**.

Standards: there should be standards. Offense impacting back to a standard would be the stuff to vote for. This is the last line of defense in lincoln-douglas that still makes it lincoln-douglas, I would prefer to keep it. Try to link offense to one, the other, or both standards. It's safer that way and good impacts back to both standards keeps you in the game.

Speed/Delivery: Some of the fastest debaters are the most clear. They have figured out ways to assure that their arguments get on the flow. Monotone reading is not nearly as cool as presenting. Slow down for tags, author names, and certainly points that you think will be the most important. The human ear needs adjustment to the unfamiliar. Speed should be something that evolves through the course of the speech. It's just a better tactic. (If you refuse to slow down after I shout "clear" several times, don't be upset at me that I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you chastize me with haughty "how did you evaluate the .....?" Answer, "I never heard that argument, so of course I did not evaluate it"

Conclusion: I am older than the majority of the judges that still love this activity and haven't railed against the progression as being "different in my day". I have worked alongside my debaters to try and grasp what is new and innovative in argumentation. I am not disagreeable to anything in particular that you might want to do. However, I am a fan of those who have read the topic literature and genuinely want to engage in somthing substantive. My speaker point scale tends to range between 26 and 29, with 30 reserved for the finest performances that I have seen on the topic. I could not imagine speaks falling below 26 unless there was **a lack of civility** or there was an absolute crush that couldn't be related in any other way.

New for 2014-2015:

K Debate: A good trend in the community and involves some interesting debates. I think a good strategy would be to engage the K on the K-level. Everyone in the community needs to be more adaptive to other people's strategies. Being narrow-minded about Kritikal debate is just like saying that we should only adopt policymaking paradigms, or some other narrow strategy. Micropol is a little more difficult to deal with though. I am not saying that these types of arguments are not interesting or that the lit is not interesting, but I am not a fan of strategies that people construct that can be refurbed for any resolution in any season for the rest of their lives. I default to people that study topic literature and think the resolution should be debated. Kritikal arguments that have post-fiat implications are interesting to me and forms of oppression that are unique to living wages (for heaven's sake, if you cannot link structural oppression to the living wage debate, you are not trying). This logic would apply to any resolution. You can frame your structural oppression arguments as discursive in-round impacts/knowledge constructions good/bad/ pre-fiat stuff. But engage in a debate about why these forms of oppression are particularly relevant to the topic being debated and can be teased out of the topic lit. Turning the words of the res into whatever you want them to be through metaphor so that you can debate what you were planning to debate before the topic was even introduced is not what I'd like to see and certainly not what I mean by engaging in the topic literature.

Win Substance. Best way to get my ballot. Run stupid unnecessary theory based on hypothetical or potential abuse. Best way to lose my ballot on the worst aff gets RVI that you ever lost to.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.victorybriefsdaily.com/index.php/George_Clemens" This page has been accessed 426 times. This page was last modified 06:24, 23 January 2007. Content is available under [|GNU Free Documentation License 1.2].