About Me
 Holy Cross ‘19
 University of Notre Dame ‘23 (Political Science and Philosophy)
 Head LD Coach, James Logan High School
 Add me to the email chain/Ask questions: blakeziegler.ld@gmail.com
 blake-ziegler.com
 Conflicts
 James Logan
 Note for Online Debate
 If you're spreading, only go 70-80% of your full speed in case the audio/Internet doesn't pick you up.*
 If you drop from the call, we'll pause the speech there and start back from wherever you left off (according to my flow). If the tournament has its own procedure, we'll follow that.
 *See my note about spreading below
 Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy
 I did LD Debate for four years at Holy Cross School, working in traditional and circuit styles. At James Logan, I coach traditional and progressive debate. So, I’m familiar with all arguments. My approach to any round is that the burden of the affirmative is to show the AC is a good idea, and the negative has to show it’s a bad idea. The affirmative should tell me why I should care about the case and how they solve for impacts. Negative can do pretty much anything, within reason, to show it’s a bad idea, whether that’s a NC, CP, K, etc.
 Every argument should link back to a framework. The unique thing about LD is the values debate and I've always appreciated it. I evaluate the debate as to who best links back to the framework. If you do that for me, we will all be happy. To be clear, I'm fine with the standard utilitarian framework, but encourage you to use other values/value criterions.
 Weighing impacts and crystallization are very important to me. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters. Sign-posting is very important!
 Traditional/Whole Resolution Cases
 These are completely fine! Please emphasize the framework debate, weigh impacts, and give me voters.
 Policy Arguments
 I like a well-researched DA or CP with unique arguments. Please make sure the evidence is good with a strong link chain, especially for exaggerated impacts like extinction or nuclear war. These impacts tend to involve spotty link chains and logical leaps. That's not to say you shouldn't run them, but that I have a high threshold for those impacts.
 Kritiks
 I did some kritiks as a debater and I've likely read whatever literature you're drawing from. Still, you should be able to clearly explain the argument without buzzwords or highly technical language, especially on the alternative. Even if I know the argument, I won't vote on it if your explanation isn't clear.
 I'd also look at my views on philosophy debate because they tend to correlate with my approach to kritiks.
 Philosophy
 Same as kritiks. Be able to clearly explain it, especially with dense philosophies. Even if I know the argument, I won’t vote on it unless you can explain it well enough. Also, be sure to identify impacts to violating the philosophy. Why should I care about it?
 I highly recommend people going against philosophy in front of me research whether your opponent is accurately reflecting the position. A lot of times, debaters tend to focus on the wrong parts of a philosophical position or ignore the rest of the theory, which leads to a misrepresentation of the literature. As a philosophy student, this really frustrates me.
 For what it's worth, I think the biggest issue for philosophy debaters is 1) making sure their contentions actually link to the framework and 2) explaining how the philosophy interacts with their opponent's own framework and impacts. Struggle in these areas tend to happen when debaters don't fully understand the literature.
 Theory
 I put theory on a high pedestal in the sense that it should only be used for actual abuse. I don't like strategies where debaters regularly rely on theory to win rounds. For frivolous shells, I will accept “This is frivolous theory, don’t vote on it” as a valid response if you can show why it's frivolous, but you can dispute if it’s frivolous.
 I still think theory is valuable for debate but am weary of it being misused. I recommend only using it if there's legitimate abuse in the round that creates a significant structural disadvantage. If you do, be clear, weigh impacts, and tell me if the shell comes before the case.
 Topicality
 My thoughts on theory also apply to topicality, but I don't put it on as high of a threshold. I think there are certain topicality shells that serve as legitimate arguments for most negative strategies, but don't think debaters should "run topicality just to run it." It's important to have conversations on whether the affirmative is topical or if being topical is worthwhile in the first place.
 Non-Topical Affirmatives
 I'm generally opposed to these (especially if they're not disclosed), but I understand their value. I'm not saying you shouldn't run these in front of me. My only expectations are that you show 1) why we should abandon the topic, 2) why the topic can't contain your advocacy, and 3) how voting affirmative solves the impact. My biggest problem with these arguments is how the ballot solves the problem. Also, if you are running identity arguments related to your personal experience, I have some sympathy for how your opponent is expected to negate your personal experiences.
 Tricks
 They’re bad for debate. Don’t run them in front of me. I will vote against you simply for your opponent pointing out it's a trick (assuming it's true), especially if you try to hide it. I also reserve the right to identify something as a trick without your opponent calling it out.
 Disclosure
 Disclosure is good for debate and that includes small school/lone wolf debaters (like I was). I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments if it's clear the opponent hasn't disclosed. There's no educational benefit in not disclosing; it's purely for competitive reasons and that undermines education impacts debaters run. Although, if your school doesn't allow disclosure or there's some other reason outside of your control that prevents you from disclosing, I'm sympathetic to those arguments.
 With that said, I think some arguments about disclosure practices (i.e., first-3-last-3 vs open source) are not persuasive. If someone has provided taglines/analytics, citations for sources, and some indication of what exactly they're reading from the source, that's sufficient. As long as someone is making a good faith effort to disclose properly, that's sufficient for me.
 I don't think debaters need to disclose new arguments and have yet to hear convincing arguments otherwise. Asking for the plan text and advantages undermines the purpose of a new affirmative.
 Spreading
 I've become increasingly convinced that spreading is bad for this activity, especially from a public speaking perspective. I understand that it allows for more in-depth argumentation that conversational speed doesn't allow, but there's a point where those benefits are outweighed by the loss of a quality debate. With that said, I recognize spreading is the norm for this activity and I'll condone it (for now), but not at ridiculous speeds. Conversational speed is generally ~150 wpm. I'll tolerate ~250 wpm. If you're going so fast that I can't flow, I won't vote on the argument.
 Other Notes
 Tech over Truth within reason.
 Obviously, any arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. will result in an immediate loss.
 Be respectful. Debate is supposed to be an activity for everyone.
 Prep time ends when the doc is sent or the flash drive leaves your computer.
 Flex prep is fine.
 2NR’s shouldn’t go for everything.
 If you are a varsity debater going against a novice debater and intentionally overwhelm them, the round will not look good for you. This is not to say go easy on them, treat them like any other opponent. The same goes for a circuit debater trying to out-circuit someone from a traditional background.
 While debate is inherently about the arguments, it has a performative aspect. How you deliver your speeches and conduct yourself matters.
 Be brief with your off-time road maps and don't say "This is a x minute speech" (I know the speech times).
 Speaker Points
 30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater.
 29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery
 29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery
 28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise
 27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills
 <27: You did something bad, like a racist argument.
 People that I admire and have influenced my views on debate
 Byron Arthur
 Aaron Timmons
 Jonathan Alston
 Ed Williams
 Eli Smith
 Chris Randall
 Bennett Eckert
 Chetan Hertzig