Amber,+Doug


 * Doug Amber, J.D.**


 * Last Update**: June 21, 2016.


 * Judge For:** Munster High School, Munster, IN.


 * Background**: College Professor, Lawyer and Management Consultant; Former high school and college debater.


 * Events**: LD, PF and Policy (CX).


 * LD Paradigm**: LD isn't "Policy Light." LD is a difficult exercise in philosophical reasoning, stylish presentation and persuasion. The LD format requires the use of a //value// and a //value-criterion//. The //value// is the abstract good to be achieved. The //value-criterion// is the standard used to measure success in achieving the //value//. If you would like a high score, don't either focus exclusively on public policy outcomes, or use a lot of policy debate jargon. Spend some time analyzing and answering the following questions: What does it mean to achieve your //value//? Why is it compelling and preferable to your opponent’s //value//? What is your standard? What makes it a good measure? What is your opponent's standard? Does your opponent’s //value-criterion// succeed or fail as a good measure? If it fails, don’t just say so; explain your reasoning, and prove it! Persuade me! See also, **Style Points** and **RFD**, below.


 * PF Paradigm**: To understand my paradigm, you'll need to know a bit of PF history. CNN founder, Ted Turner was one of the early sponsors of PF. For a while, PF was called "Ted Turner Public Forum Debate." PF is based upon version 1.0 of C NN's television show, "Crossfire" ( 1982 -- 2005 ). My paradigm: During each and every moment of the round, you are on-camera being watched by a national television audience. You are __never__ off-camera. Thus, you'll need a TV //persona//. I’m looking for brief argument with traction. Get in there. Stay organized. Make your points quickly. Argue persuasively. To do PF well, you must learn the forms of rational and reasonable argument, the figures of speech and the logical fallacies. Most importantly, however, you must learn how to handle an intractable opponent while simultaneously persuading and motivating an audience. **Remember**: PF teaches how demagoguery works, so you can defeat it efficiently.


 * Policy (CX) Paradigm**: Tab. Please however, consider the following jargon-rich comments...


 * Counter-plans**: No, unless Neg accepts Aff's case as true __and__ solves better than Aff. Do you really want to go there?


 * Cross-ex**: No “tag team” cross-ex in Indiana, unless all concur in advance.


 * K**: Yes, if you’ve actually read some of the principal authors’ works, and you can discuss them intelligently. No, if you’re just reading a canned argument.


 * New Arguments in Rebuttals**: No! Extend, explain, provide additional evidence and rebut!


 * New in the Two**: No, unless __two__ conditions are met. First, it must be done in a traditional way, i.e., using a generally-accepted pre-1972 methodology. Second, it must be part of a logically-structured, properly-articulated and well-organized strategy that makes good sense. It can’t be merely an attempt to ambush, mislead, muddle or overload. See also, **New Arguments in Rebuttals.**


 * Road-maps**: No! They are useless. See, **Signposting, Summaries and Transitions.**


 * Signposting, Summaries and Transitions**: Yes! I really like internal organization. Organization facilitates brevity, clarity and persuasiveness.


 * Speed**: OK, but not preferred. See also, **Style Points**.


 * Style Points**: Yes! Efficiency, eye contact, natural gestures, proper diction and inflection, smooth delivery, sophistication and wit are good. Alternatively, arrogance, clothing askew, gasping for breath at excessive speed and reading a speech without any eye contact are not good.


 * T**: T arguments aren't compelling, unless they are both valid and __very__ brief.


 * Theory**: Three points: First, most people don't do it very well. Second, don't waste time debating about debating, if you can dismantle their argument. Third, don't conflate mere "debate theory argument" with state of the art critical thinking and philosophical argument.


 * RFD**: I must come to a reasoned conclusion. Take a stand. Explain what’s at stake. Explain why your argument is more compelling than your opponent’s. Don’t just ramble, read cards and nit-pick. Get to the bottom of things. Persuade me. **Remember**: Your thoughts are your mental children. Don’t clothe them in rags!


 * Have Fun!!!**