Pierson,+Kit

A little bit about my background. I was a high level policy debater in high school and college, although this was many years ago (1970's). Policy debate was fast then, but not like it is now. My own view, is that LD debate should not be a contest to fit as much information as possible into a confined time period by going as fast as possible. While one can argue about whether that is appropriate in policy debate, I think persuasiveness and oratorical skills are an important part of LD debate. I also think that judges have a responsibility to draw lines, because absent this debaters have the incentive to jam as much information as the time limits (and their speed) will allow. I also think debating without regard to speed undercuts an important learning objective of the activity -- i.e., learning to speak persuasively/effectively -- and it took me many years to "unlearn" the "skill" of spreading.

So I view myself as a "moderate" on speed (debaters who are used to debating in front of judges that are indifferent to speed could view me as conservative). My general ground rule is that if I have trouble understanding the argument, or can't follow the evidence because it is too fast, then I will only give it weight insofar as I understood it. I also do not think it is the Judge's responsibility to say "clear" or otherwise express unhappiness in the course of a speech -- I will tell debaters my philosophy at the start of a round and they should proceed accordingly. With that said, I very much try to vote "on the flow" -- i.e., the strength/content of arguments that are presented. I do not award a debater a win simply because I think someone is "the better debater" -- I vote on arguments. I also think that the judge has some responsibility to assess an argument when it is made. For example, if a debater says "the moon is made of green cheese," and that "argument" is dropped, I will not give it voting weight. An argument is only as strong as it is when it is made, and the fact that a bad argument is dropped does not make it stronger. So, if dropped, I will give the argument as much weight as it was entitled to, but it will not become more compelling because it is dropped.

Although I debated for six years, and have judged very good LD debaters for a number of years (at nationals and otherwise), most of the LD debate I have been exposed to is fairly traditional (i.e., based on arguments about the value, value criterion and related contentions), rather than theory, critical cases or counterplans. This is not to say that I am unwilling to consider more progressive approaches, simply that I have rarely heard them debated. I suppose I have a natural inclination to believe that the topics used in LD debate are reasonable and, having been presented to the debaters, they should be debated on their own terms (pro and con). I also have some preference for seeing the debaters clash on the central issues presented by a topic, rather than very theoretical approaches that are designed to side-step the resolution of win simply by benefit of surprise. Again, I am open to seeing how this plays out in a particular round -- and trying to judge based on the strength of the competing arguments -- but you should be aware that it may be at least a bit of an uphill battle for me if you are side-stepping a direct clash of the value and policy considerations presented by the resolution.

I think that LD debaters overplay the importance of "cards." The fact that someone is quoted quickly with a one or two second sound bite urging a particular conclusion is usually not terribly persuasive to me independent of the warrant/rationale for the statement or any underlying empirical support. So I will certainly pay attention to evidence about empirical analysis of a situation, consequences in particular countries, or the like -- but a conclusory statement carries little or no weight in my mind simply because it is contained in "a card."

It is probably fair to say, that I carry some lingering predispositions based on my history as a policy debater. I often find discussions of the competing values to be something of a wash, and often find myself voting on a utilitarian calculation of the competing contentions. I am entirely open to non-utilitarian value premises, but simply find that the values are often not explained or defended terribly well by debaters, so if often becomes difficult to decide that one value is superior to the other, and thus the more pragmatic implications of the competing positions (typically reflected in the contentions), often becomes dispositive in my mind. Again, this may reflect my own history as a policy debater, but I do try hard to be open to all competing arguments whether about values or otherwise.

Finally, it is probably worth noting, that I think debate is a tremendous educational activity, and a very challenging one. I believe judges have a responsibility to be gracious to debaters, to recognize the challenges involved, and to devote all of the judge's mental energy in the round to reaching a fair and hopefully correct decision. I remember my own concerns as a debater about judge partiality, biases, etc., so I do my utmost to stay completely impartial, listen as carefully as I can, and try to determine who has won on the flow. That conclusion will, of course, be significantly influenced by the considerations I have outlined above.