My views about what needs to be emphasized in contemporary >academic debate have remained stable for several years. The first >is PRECISION OF ARGUMENT. It seems to me that debate should train >students to more precisely advance and identify claims. It is hard >for me to regard sloppily worded claims on the nature of, ``case analysis >disproves that'' as representative of good argumentation. Second is >lack of COMPLETENESS. I think speed per se, the words per minute uttered, >is rarely an important problem. Rather, utterances become so truncated >that they cross below the threshold of what constitutes an argument >or delivery makes it very hard for listeners to process--to attend >to and remember--the arguments. Third is lack of COHERENCE in the >reasons debaters advance. We've heard a lot about the need to ``tell >a story.'' Much research converges on the conclusion that people process >information within structures; that for information to be meaningful, >it must be connected to other information. My firm belief is that >debaters need to spend MUCH more time and effort considering how separate >arguments in a debate fit together into a coherent whole. > THIS NEXT STUFF IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU! >Particularly important is comparison of arguments and evaluation of >their relative importance. Winning an argument isn't that hard. Ability >to show why the arguments you've won are important to the whole round >is the mark of a truly good debater. Instead, debaters usually treat >all arguments as equally important. There is little attempt to discuss >underlying assumptions or overarching issues. While overviews at the >beginning of a rebuttal are better than NO attempt to provide comparisons >I often find them of little use because they are left divorced from >the "line-by-line." In my view, really effective debating would INTEGRATE >comparisions with the specific refutation. That is, the debaters >would win the particular arguments and then explain the importance >of those positions rather than separating out the "importance" step >into a separate overview. Also, I suspect that overviews are often >used to advance new arguments so be sure you clearly connect overview >arguments to somewhere else on the flow > >GENERAL IMPLICATIONS; FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING In an effort >to promote precision, completeness and coherence in argument, I have >adopted what can be termed a ``non-interventionist'' stance, holding >that debaters should be given credit for only the arguments they ACTUALLY >PRESENT. I attempt to place an obligation upon debaters for not merely >presenting ``positions,'' but to create MEANING. To promote decision >making by the debaters, I take the role of an ``educational gamesperson''. >The ``educational'' reflects my desire for the outcome of the process. >The ``games'' term reflects my view that the educational end result >is best served by allowing argument about any issue. I promise to >listen (to the best of my ability) to anything. Since education is >my desired end result of the game, educational implication is one >fruitful area from which to develop justifications for theoretic practices. >It is certainly not the only area from which to develop such justifications. >I purposely avoid terming myself ``tabula rasa'' since it is hard >for me to believe a blank slate possible or even desirable. What does >a blank slate tell the tab room if no one develops any decision rules? >The predispositions which I knowingly bring into a room fall into >these general categories > >ARGUMENT PRECONCEPTIONS: Remember that the definition of an argument >is ``cognitive'' and focuses on meaning. That means I'm actively trying >not to intervene and finish titles, explanations, applications,... >What you say out loud is the argument made. Even if I could make the >argument more effective by altering the claim, it will not be rewritten >for you. You should also make your own applications of arguments. >If an argument on disad 1 applies to disad 3, you need to tell my >why. Even if the link is ``clearly'' the same. You need to tell me >that. However, intervention will happen after 2AR. I will make >a real effort to catch new arguments in 2AR. A lot new happens in >2AR and it is automatically thrown out. While a smart disco can strike >me as a thing of true beauty, it is risky to grant things out in 2AR >since that may be perceived as new. Comparisons of positions are pretty >safe. In another effort to minimize intervention, I try to call for >evidence only if it was missed through my error or if there is a dispute >about the nature of the evidence. > >PARADIGM PRECONCEPTIONS; When placed within the hypothesis testing, >policy making or stock issues paradigm, I will automatically weigh >presumption in the appropriate manner at the end of the round. This >does not mean debaters can or should not influence that weighing. >Violations of burdens created by the paradigm must be pointed out. >The following section details some burdens which will automatically >be accepted as flowing from the paradigm in the absence of contrary >argumentation. If a different paradigm or some variant of the paradigm >is argued, implications should be clearly developed as flowing from >the paradigm. If no paradigm position is argued, I will function as >a weak hypothesis tester. ``Weak'' indicates that the presumption >weighed against the resolution is rather weak. It is assumed terms >of the resolution need to be justified, counterplans need be nontopical >and disadvantages should be intrinsic. When functioning as a policy >maker it is possible the lack of a coherent and consistent policy >may be enough to cause me to vote against the offending team. Presumption >will be against the risk engendered by change and relative to the >amount of change. Other standards for presumption are certainly possible >when argued and won. It is an unusually incompetent affirmative that >selects a harm area so insignificant that it will not outweigh presumption. >Consequently, when making policy it is hard for me to vote on presumption >alone without disad risk unless presumption is shown to be particularly >severe. When evaluating stock issues, conditional argumentation is >appropriate, presumption is with the present system and counterplans >must be mutually exclusive. This list of the implications of paradigms >is certainly not exhaustive. > >COUNTERPLANS: Beyond what is said in the "paradigm" section--I've >voted for a lot of topical counterplans but I'm very uneasy about >that. It sure doesn't seem consistent with being a hypothesis-tester.... > >CRITIQUE ARGUMENTS: The philosophical issues seem important to me. >Still, a lot of critique positions strike me as just silly or, even >more likely, some kind of incoherent philo-psycho-babble. However, >my experience has been that a lot of debaters (and coaches) "feel" >critiques are odd and this relieves them of the burden to present >arguments. My desire for the educational functioning of the activity >still controls the situation and IF you were able to convince me that >critque positions are particularly bad for our game, I'd want to get >rid of them. However, you need to remember that I don't start with >the assumptions that critiques are bad. You need to explain and illustrate >why that would be so. Given current affirmative to negative win-loss >rates, I don't worry too much about giving negative teams too many >options.... > >TOPICALITY PRECONCEPTIONS; At the start of the round topicality is >an absolute voting issue, extratopicality means no accruing advantages. >Again, all this can be fruitfully argued. > >PERSONAL PREDISPOSITIONS; Don't be obnoxious to anyone. This would >never be consciously applied to a decision but it sure will be applied >to your points! Playing with the format of the activity should be >argued only as a last resort. This view of game playing does not thrill >me. It would take a lot of educational benefit to outweigh the impact >upon the poor tournament director. When in doubt - ASK!! > > >Specific Issues versus Judging Philosophy... > >1. "Critiques" > >My view of my role as judge challenges many preconceptions about critiques. >If is common for people to start with the preconception that I >am functioning as a ``policy maker" and, thus, would reject a critique >if it did not lead to some policy outcome. But, since my concern >does not center around ``policy," this line of argument can be pretty >fruitless. Now, if you want to convince me that the best way to teach >argument to focus on policy arguments--then you may get somewhere. > >2. Topical Counterplans > >The hypothesis testing background becomes less and less important. > Not because I've changed--because debate has changed. Please note >the serious inconsistency between my avowed tendency toward hypothesis >testing and my practice toward allowing topical counterplans. In >this case, my higher order value for educational debate has "trumped" >the hypothesis testing. In practice, topical counterplans have not >led to an overwhelming tactical advantage for the negative. Topical >counterplans often are involved in some very good debates. So, they >seem to me to be consistent with my desire for effective teaching >of argumentation. > >3. Permutations > > The longer I think about permutations--the more confused things get.... > I normally think of perms as a test that the counterplan must pass >rather than as a revision of the policy options. However, in practice, >the affirmative plan plus the perm is often compared to the counterplan. >My advice to you would be to explain clearly and defend your view >of a permutation. > >4. Reading evidence. > >I do it--but I don't like it. My view of debate centers around you >creating meaning in the audience (my) mind. If I need to read your >evidence, that means you were not clear, thus, not doing good debate. >Most debaters seem to conceive of clarity only in terms of articulation. >That is a very limited view. The processing of speech is a very >complex cognitive process and there is a lot more than articulation >involved in being ``clear." You need to help the audience attend >to, code, and transfer your arguments into long term memory. An example. >Your spoken words could be clearly articulated but not connected >to any schema in the audience's mind. If so, it is at least unlikely, >perhaps impossible, for the words to be translated into meaning. >5. Personal quirks > > a. Answering your partner's cross-ex questions strikes me as an implicit >statement that the partner is not capable of her/his own answer. >Now, it is certainly preferable that the right answer be given but >give your partner a chance to show incompetence before you barge in. > > b. Sign-posting. My processing is a lot better when you get the >arguments flowed close to each other. Vague references of ``cross >apply" or "below" make it difficult to connect the arguments. I'll >write it down somewhere--but you probably don't want me trying to >figure out where to apply the argument. Remember that I may be trying >to figure that out an hour after you've presented the argument. > > c. I'd like to observe a "bright line" for speech time. When the >timer goes off, please stop. Don't finish the card or finish the >sentence--just stop. This makes it much easier to know what was "in" >and what wasn't. > >*************************** > Fred Sternhagen > SCTA Department > Concordia College > Moorhead, MN 56562 > 218-299-3731 >***************************

Back