Pielstick,+Erik

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, high school debate coach)
 * Erik Pielstick ** – Los Osos High School

I value cleverness, wit, and humor. That said, the affirmative case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

I want to see clash.

Aff framework should make sense, and assuming it does, the round ought to be debated within the parameters of the aff framework for the resolution. The neg must clash to win. If the neg rejects the framework, standards, value, criterion, or definitions brought up by the aff they will need a highly warranted argument as to why I ought to reject aff framework. I don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases would vote for a well-reasoned neg theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

Neg can also be unique and clever, but a brilliant neg case that does not link to the aff won’t win. Again, neg must clash. Explain the links to aff case and to the resolution. I have a high threshold for voting for kritiks, but if it is really clever…maybe. I like philosophical arguments, but don't run philosphy you don't understand.

It seems that most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but that is not necessary. The format for the debate really ought to be determined by the resolution. The debate could be a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own. Some resolutions are written as truth statements in which the aff has a burden of upholding the truth of the statement, and the neg wins by proving the statement untrue, or by attacking the aff reasons for thinking the statement true. In such a situation the V V/C format is unnecessary.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a very fast delivery (300wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is full-on crazy-spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless I don't know what you said. If I miss an argument, card, link, or warrant because I couldn't understand it that is your fault, not mine. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, and it is nice when the cross examination scores points on the flow.

I allow roadmaps before time starts because it helps me flow.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win. I make my decision based on the big-picture first. Did the Aff debater uphold the resolution? Then I weigh arguments and impacts if there is not a clear win on the standard.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language.