Carroll,Bob

Bob Carroll – LD/PF Debate Coach, Munster (IN) High School I competed in speech in both high school and college with some success; I was a state champion in high school and national champion in college. After college, I started coaching speech, particularly the public address and limited preparation events, and because of my experience in argumentation, I was eventually hired by a speech program that was establishing a debate program. I have coached intermittently over the past twenty years. In my present position, I serve as the coach for Lincoln-Douglas and public forum debate for a program that is a top twenty NFL chapter nationwide and one of the top three debate programs in Indiana. In a given week, I could coach as many as thirty-five debaters in these two events. In Lincoln-Douglas in general, I teach debaters to construct their cases using logic, analysis and evidence, to defend them with persuasive and professional delivery, and to deconstruct the cases of their opponents with clear and careful analysis and insightful evidence. Quality of argumentation matters over quantity. Frameworks are important to delineate the grounds for debate and the burdens of each position. Rationales should be direct, well-researched, well-understood and well-supported. My debaters understand the primary objective of the affirmative is to defend while that of the negative is to attack. I do not, however, believe the negative is required to advance a positive case (he or she may win simply by deconstructing the affirmative case). A debate may win my ballot simply by winning the framework clash. Value premises must be abstract concepts, but criterion should be practical, achievable and measurable. On the present (November-December 2013) resolution, I would add the following:
 * 1) The affirmative has the burden to demonstrate the conflict between the two ideas present in the resolution. This conflict is assumed, you cannot ignore it. You must explain how, why and when attorney-client privilege impedes truth-seeking. You also must explain what is truth-seeking and why it should be prioritized over the privilege.
 * 2) The negative has the burden of clashing all of its argumentation against the affirmative. Any unopposed argumentation by the affirmative stands as valid. Even if it does not advance a case, the negative must postulate an alternative framework for consideration.