Fagan,+Ben

Over the ten years that I've been a competitor and later coach, I have participated in or taught every debate event offered by the NFL. Over that time I have cultivated a relatively straightforward judging philosophy. I want arguments explained and weighed for me. That's it. But I feel that a lot of circuit debate relies on catering to individual, so-called 'professional', judging paradigms that do the work for the competitors. Essentially it turns high stakes rounds into dice rolls by bringing the judge's ideas about what debate should be into the round in a way that is not transparent and that competitors have little control over.

I value non-policy events as part of the participants' communications education. As such it is up to the competitors to define the scope and argumentation used in the round, so long as it falls within the guidelines of the resolution and my ability to understand its construction. I will be willing to consider any sort of argument so long as it is well explained and internally consistent, but the burden lies on the competitors to tell me whether it is or not. I expect the competitors to weigh and evaluate the arguments they and their opponents make, and to explain to me why they have won. I will not do work for you.

I may be in the minority on this but, because Lincoln-Douglas debate is a value debate, I like to see debate on the comparative merits of each side's values and the articulated frameworks into which those values fit without becoming too bogged down with stacking up cards a la policy. On the topic of policy, I understand speed but I hate it. I prefer well developed to simply more arguments. I feel that speed is a tactic that unnecessarily excludes competitors, judges, and coaches; alienates administrators and donors; and preys on people with hearing and comprehension disabilities. Speed hurts debate. Do not hurt debate.

I am an assistant coach at Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon.