Magyar,+Paul

Paul Magyar -updated Oct 2014

I debated for Eagan High School on the MN and national circuit and coached for Eagan from 2006-2014. I am currently a 1L at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Update for the Minneapple: I have not judged or coached since nationals, and have not judged a circuit round since last January. My flowing skills have likely atrophied some, which makes c larity even more important, both in how you structure your arguments, and in how you deliver them. Otherwise, nothing has changed.

If you get nothing else out of reading this, the three most important pieces of advice I can give are: 1. Clearly extend and explain the warrant and impact of your argument, "extend Peterson, people die" is not an extension. 2. Tell me how your arguments interact with the standards presented in the round, and how it outweighs your opponent’s argument(s). "It outweighs on magnitude and probability" is not weighing, those are claims which need a warranted explanation like any other argument. 3. Actually engage with your opponents arguments. Reading generic turns and answers may win you the round, but the best debaters can go down the flow and tell me why their opponents arguments are wrong, which is always more convincing then generic responses that apply to most AC's.

Other Stuff

__ Speed __ : Speed is fine but it needs to be reasonable and you must remain articulate. SLOW DOWN for tags, author names, and anything of particularly high importance. I emphasize that because it’s often ignored. If you don’t, I may miss things that are important or struggle to follow the card because I didn't catch what the argument it’s supporting is.

__ Theory __ : If you have theory pre-empts in the AC they need to have a clear structure to make flowing them easier. If a counter-interpretation and violation are phrased and explained to show that the argument of the original theory shell is in violation of a “rule of debate” that is sufficient for me to vote on it if it is won. “I meet’s” and other defensive arguments being a sufficient reason to win the round require winning an RVI, and my predisposition to that is not favorable.

__ Standards __ : Tell me how to evaluate the round, I have the most experience with V/C or just a standard, but I’m fine with whatever you want to present so long as you explain how it functions. Unless you and your opponent agree on a standard, please spend time debating over standards because which one I choose frames how all other arguments function.

__ A priori __ : If an issue is a priori it needs to be labeled that very clearly the first time the argument is made in the round, as well as warranted as to why. If there are multiple a priori arguments then there needs to be a clear order of evaluation. I like that random A priori "Justice doesn't exist" type of arguments are becoming far less common.

__ Kritiks and critical argumentation __ : I'm fine with kritiks if your kritik is well warranted and links well into the AC. I would much rather hear critical argumentation related to the topic than a generic kritik you can run on any topic. The more complex the rhetoric, the slower you need to speak, and the more time you need to take explaining the argument and how it functions. Please do not ignore that last part or it will be a painful round for all.

__ Crystallization __ : Tell me what is important and what I should vote on, and in what order I evaluate arguments. The perfect crystallization will write my RFD for me. If it doesn't, then I have to do work, and the more work I have to do the less likely you will be happy about the result.

__ Speaker Points __ : I’ll range in general from 25-29, a 30 requires an exceptional round, but a 28 or 29 aren't difficult to get if you debate well. I base speaker points on both the quality of your arguments (how well the warrant and impact is explained and interacted with the framework and your opponents arguments) and how strategic you are in round. For every new argument I will drop your speaks by 1. Don’t make new arguments.

__ General __ : I find that rounds are often clearer if you debate from one cohesive position or syllogism. Unless prohibited by the tournament I will disclose and discuss the round. I’m fine if you have a question about my decision or how I evaluated something in the round, but if it becomes arguing with me over it I will adjust your speaker points accordingly.