Center,+Wesley

I am a hospital-based clinician, professor of psychology and counseling and a retired Marine officer – that’s just weird, know. I have judged LD and moot court, most recently for the Burleson ISD. I am partial to well-structured arguments based in the formal rules of logic. Consequently, arguments containing logical fallacies will fall on deaf ears as will under-developed or unstructured arguments. ** A debater’s task in LD is to build a logical framework from which to advocate for the affirmative or negative of a case. Both sides of the case must establish a logical framework for evaluating the resolution and then defend that position. Debaters need to be able to project the logical implications of their arguments so that the case, as advocated, communicates real-world impacts. Despite these rather broad limits, debaters are granted a wide berth in constructing and framing their argument (claim, warrant, impact/import). Frameworks must be specified from the outset (saying “I’m employing traditional LD”, or words to that effect, won’t cut it). I flow the arguments as I hear them (admittedly, what I hear may not be what you believe you’ve said) and I weigh the form (framework) and content of the case. I will give one warning if the rate of speech exceeds my ability to digest your arguments. Again, my background is moot court where fast-paced speech is a decided negative; fast and unintelligible speech is not in debaters’ best interests. 
 * Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
 * //Tactics, Strategies, Framework //**
 * Kritiks** (critiques, for you older purists): Topical kritiks, properly presented, provide the soundest theoretical framework in LD and moot court. Criticisms of the resolution are generally tenuous undertakings but are possible if there is solid, logical ground on which to proceed and the framework supports it. As other judges have indicated, kritiks are not solely the province of the negative, although affirmative kritiks have more difficulty in remaining topical and are therefore to be undertaken with great caution – //caveat emptor//.

**Topicality **: The burden of proof for going off-topic lies with the opponent – if you are going after your opponent for going off-topic, you MUST offer //proof// by demonstrating how the opponent has gone off-topic and what the logical consequences are that extend from off-topic assertions. Due to the nature of LD, logical fallacies cripple an otherwise well-argued case; being able to ferret out logical fallacies in an opponent’s argument and to correctly identify them will earn speaker points, and can be devastating to your opponent’s case.
 * Evidence**: Evidence ought to be clearly presented, cogently analyzed, with real-world impacts articulated. Extension of arguments made in evidence must be verbalized – not merely alluded to – in other words, saying that you extended is not a substitute for actually extending the argument and the argument’s warrants.
 * Rebuttal/Surrebuttal **: 1ARs are about extending one’s case, buttressing the framework of the case and not so much about attacking the negative case. A certain amount of deflection of the negative is to be expected, but dwelling on the negative case during 1AR is poor time management and in the end, unwise. 2ARs and 2NRs should evaluate the relative merits of offense vs. defense within the existing frameworks set forth in the initial round.


 * Logical fallacies**: Aristotelian refutation is based on thirteen logical fallacies as are Chase’s, articulated 2500 years after Aristotle. Those which can ruin a debater’s day in LD are: //ad hominem// arguments – attacking the man (attacking the arguer), //amphiboly// – poorly constructed language resulting in ambiguity, //argumentum ad antiquitam// – the appeal to antiquity, //argumentum ad verecundiam// – appeal to (false) authority, //argumentum ad populum// – appeal to the crowd, //argumentum ad temperantium// – appeal to moderation, //argumentum ad novitam// – appeal to newness, //argumentum ad lapidum// – appeal to the stone, //apriorism// – starting with conclusions and using that as the basis to accept certain facts, //petition principia// - begging the question, and //bifurcation// – arguing that there are two and only two options when in reality there are more. Why is this important in debate and moot court? You cannot consider yourself to have argued well if you have argued illogically, or worse, falsely. **Warning: //ad hominem// arguments directed toward your opponent will result in an outright or low point win for your opponent.** Attack your opponent’s argument, not your opponent.


 * Closing:** Don't tell me or my fellow judges how to vote, or that we //**must**// vote a certain way because, in your opinion, the opponent has dropped an argument or failed to extend, that's why we're paid the big bucks. However, __it is wise to point out those things__ //**without** // saying "...and so you MUST vote for the affirmative/negative..." or, "...you have no choice but to vote for..."