Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:11:10 -0400
From:           anneb703@cs.com
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        Judging

Dear fledgling LD debaters,

    I'm kind of new to this debate thing myself, but I thought I might add my opinion to the mix.  
FIRST--Make sure you know your judge just a little.  Make sure to make note of whether or not the judge is a college debater or a teacher, or (God forbid) some hapless parent who isn't going to know what you are talking about.  If your judge is a college debater, you can speak as fast as you want or can.  Even if you practice and your parents/teachers don't understand because you are going too fast, fellow debaters will, I promise.  Be clear, but speed is something debaters and ex-debaters can always deal with.  The human mind can comprehend 500 a minute (Mary Wash even has a card that says this), so go go go.  If your judge is a teacher/parent, go more slowly and assume that they will think you are from another planet if you go into a complicated Bush disad or PIC (plan inclusive counterplan).  These don't really have any place in an LD round anyway, but don't pull them out of nowhere just to go over the judge's head and sound smart, it's taboo and snotty.   
   This kind of brings me to my next point, even if you have a teacher or parent who is a judge, and you don't speak 90 mph, this doesn't mean that they don't know anything.  Never be afraid to use the terminolgy of debate.  If you have a counterplan, call it such, likewise with putting voters on topicality or using turns.  Even if this teacher has never hear anyone present a couterplan before, or a voter, I'm sure he/she can figure out what you're saying--teachers are very good at context clues.  Always give a roadmap (tell the order in which you are going to argue your points), even if the judge isn't keeping a flow (which they really should be), it's easier to keep things straight and even count up arguements in your head if you know where the speaker is going. In addition, it just gets you in the habit of getting your thoughts organized. In addition, forgetting to give a roadmap can be really detrimental if you have to stop during your first page of evidence because no one!
 knows the order of your arguements.
   Don't get too snippy in CX, I personally hate that.  I've seen debaters who belittle their opponent and don't even have the evidence to back up their claims, this results in very low speaks.  To recap, clash good, rudeness, very bad. 

   If you don't understand somthing, ask, the terminolgy is a ton!  We have been there, if you don't understand what a turn or disad is, we college debaters would just LOVE to show off how smart and cool (or dorky and uppity depending on how you feel about debate) we are by explaining debate terms.
    Listen to our advice, we challange your debate to help, not ALWAYS to just hear ourselves talk, and we have given great thought to what we are going to say. It's also just nice to be appreciated, and you show this to your judge by listening to what they have to say.  If you don't know why you lost a round--please get your judge's imput so that you don't lose the next round due to some stupid mistake like not extending arguments or something.
   Lying sucks, I agree with some of the other philosophies I've read, and we agree that lying is a real problem.  If you really didn't extend where you needed to, any judge worth their salt has already made note of it.  If the situation arises where you really should have extended arguements for example, say why you didn't think you needed to....(i.e. I was explaining this other arguement, which clearly outweighs, I didn't extend because it wasn't necessary because of XYZ)  This is a much better solution than lying and saying you did extend evidence when you didn't.  I hope you all got that and understand what I'm trying to say.  Bottomline, you can only BS and cover mistakes so much, in the end, it's all on the flow.
   I hope this helps, I'm a brand new coach of a wonderful team in Manassas, Va., but I've judged a lot of LD.  Any questions or comments can go to my school mail at abeve1ts@mwc.edu.  Thanks!
              Anne Beverly
              Mary Washington College Debate
              Osbourn Park High School Debate Coach

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

From:           Michael Bietz <biet0004@tc.umn.edu>
Reply-To:       ld-l@world.std.com
To:             LD A Listserv <ld-l@world.std.com>
Subject:        If I judge you

I should've done this long ago.  in addition, i hope that other judges
follow suit as i believe this could be extremely helpful.  i think we
tried it once before.  however, this was when the listserv was brand new. 
so let's try it again, and hope a lot o f you all participate.  i plan on
printing out and giving to my debaters, as well as anyone else who asks
how so and so judges.  If you could follow a similar format that'd be cool
(well at least put your name and affiliation at the top). 

Judging Preferences:
Michael Bietz
Hopkins Debate  

I try to be as close to a tabula rasa judge as i can.  I keep a VERY
complete flow.  Thus i don't miss many arguments/answers.  however, this
does not mean i want you to attempt to spread your opponent out with
crappy blip responses without weighing or im pacting. 

my newest pet peeve is people that lie.  lies include, but are not limited
to: 

- saying your opponent something was agreed upon or conceded in CX when it
clearly was not. 
- saying your opponent dropped something when it was not. 
- making new arguments in rebuttals
- extending arguments that were never made
- extending an argument in 2ar that was dropped in 1ar
- saying your opponent conceded something in c-x even though the question
they may have conceded to is only related to what you're inferring from
it. 

THE BOTTOM LINE - DO NOT LIE i know there are judges out there that will
accept it, or are oblivious to it.  i am not.  do not lie.  i will know. 

ok about argumentation.  if your opponent is pressing you to show links to
the impacts you claim like rights violation, etc, don't just re-assert
your original argument.  this is not an argument, it does not answer it. 

don't waste your time arguing about "well my opponent doesn't have a card
that says justice is good..."  i believe that analysis is much more
persuasive than most evidence.  (since most LD evidence d/n have any
analysis). 

impact your arguments.  if you say "well that means the gov't violates the
social contract..."  SO WHAT!!  what is the impact of this argument. 
don't assume that its bad.  esp. in the realm of rights. 

don't try to define your opponent out of the round.  it makes for bad
debate, and it is abusive.  the definition i will accept will be the one
that gives the most ground to both sides, and makes for the best debate. 
(write a limits block if you'd like) 

don't cross apply all over the place.  typically debaters cross-apply
similar reponses to similar arguments.  however, similar does not mean
specifically the same.  therefore (and this isn't just a pet peeve of mine
but also just poor debating) you are mo st likely not answering specific
analysis.

i try to keep the rounds light.  i've judged a lot of stressful rounds. 
so if i make a joke or try to have conversation with you, its only b/c i
want you to feel comfortable with me adjudicating the round. 

i generally won't disclose unless the debaters ask.  and if i do disclose,
and you have questions please ask about them.  i won't be offended. 

finally, take risks.  i mean if you're gonna go for an argument, go for
it.  i mean this, of course, must be strategically sound.  if you see that
some arguments don't fit into the big issues of the round anymore, tell me
and then go for what you're gonna win.  but make sure you weigh. 

ok, i think that's ok.  at least its better than those cards they hand out
nationals. 

m.bietz
hopkins debate
national debate forum

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

From:           Heath Dixon <heathd@swbell.net>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Judging Philosophy for LD

This is my first take at writing this, so I apologize if it is
incomplete or not completely helpful.  I will read some others later and
amend mine, but here it is for what it's worth.

I believe in slow debate.  Word economy.

I do not believe in core values.  I believe in criteria which are
relevant to evaluating the claim made by the resolution.  I do not like
generic ideas such as justice being giving each person their due.  Do
not focus on the value debate, focus on the resolution.

I like evidence for factual claims, but not so much for value
judgements.  Give me reasoning, not quotations.

That's all for now.

Heath Dixon
SA-Lee

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Sun,  3 Nov 2002 18:12:44 -0500
From:           mafabian@umich.edu
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        I have a judge paradigm for you guys,
                because I'll be judging at some upcoming circuit tournaments

Hello.

If you don't know who I am, my name is Michael Fabiano. I was a debater for 
Benilde St. Margaret's High School in Minnesota. It was a quasi-circuit team 
for a couple of years, while I competed for it. I currently attend the 
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

As for the paradigm, here goes:

1) Clear standards debate: I really don't care much about the value because 
the criterion ulimately becomes the way that we evaluate the round. If both 
opponents come up with a merged criterion or agree to one standard, fine. That 
can't in itself win or lose you the round. However, if you concede or agree to 
a standard and you can't weigh any of your arguments through it, you will 
lose. 

2) Anything goes in the round. I'll listen to and consider all arguments that 
are debated. Just remember, you can rattle off lots of great arguments but if 
you don't weigh your arguments against your opponents, it makes it harder for 
me to decide the round. Do all of the work, so I can write an easy, high point 
ballot for you. 

3) As for spreads, go ahead, I love them. The affirmative should know how to 
at least pick the right issues in his or he 1AR to still stay a viable 
competitor. I think spreading is a good way to get lots of issues on the 
table. But remember, if you blip spread everything, those blips won't 
influence my decision in the round. Give me substantive arguments that can be 
easily weighed in the 2NR.

4) Voting issues are important too. Tell me what you feel are the most 
important arguments in the round and weigh them against your opponents and 
through the standard. If you have independent voting issues, that are a priori 
to other issues, make them clear too. 

5) Don't cheat. I really hate debaters that tell me to extend things when the 
shouldn't be extended or when debaters say things in the 2AR that were never 
even blipped about in the 1AR. New 2AR's lose rounds in my mind, even if you 
are clearly winning. Plus, if you totally exaggerate answers made from CX and 
apply them to one of your speeches, I won't consider the argument in your 
decision. If you cheat, in any of these ways, you can potentially lose. 
Ultimately, your speaker points will be no higher than a 25 on the Minnesota 
scale. 

6) Make the round clear. Speaking unusually fast without enunciation or 
muddling arguments will force me to give you low speaks. I'll be really 
generous in terms of speaks if you clearly follow the flow and weigh arguments 
well. Finally, even if you win every argument in the round, if there is no 
clear link or link at all to the standard, you will not win. If there is any 
issue that is the most important to me, it is that one: Weigh all of your 
arguments through the standard. 

If you have any questions, feel free to email me. The first tournament I will 
judging this year is the Glennbrooks tournament. mafabian@umich.edu.

Thanks

Mike Fabiano

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Tue, 29 May 2001 19:08:55 EDT
From:           GrandNatl1@aol.com
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        LD Judging Philosophy: Patrick Fitch

    [ Part 1, Text/PLAIN  88 lines. ]
    [ Unable to print this part. ]

Greetings-
   I'll be coaching LD at Catonsville High (Baltimore) next year, so I'll
be
around on the judging circuit a lot.  I think that judge adaptation is
important, so I thought I'd make mine accessible.  I'm kinda gonna use
the
TOC Judge Philosophy Rubric.  
                        -Pat Fitch
                         Catonsville High

   VALUES
First, a value structure is necessary.  I will not vote for a debater
simply
because he/she proves his/her value premise/core value or criterion to be
supreme in the round.  I WILL, however, most definitely vote on which
debater's position/arguments best achieve whichever criterion I'm using
to
weigh the round; therefore, winning the criterion debate is a good thing
to
do.  I don't really care a huge amount about the value premise/core
value, as
it doesn't have much relevance (i.e. the criterion must be met first);
value
premises are generally vague and good things to uphold, so a debate that
gets
bogged down in "Justice is better than Morality"; look at the criterion
and
arguments, they make for better clash.

   EVIDENCE
I don't require full evidentiary citations; a name is a must, and if it's
not
a common card-author on the topic give me a credential (if you don't, I
won't
dock you for it).  I flow evidence fully and, as long as the card has an
internal warrant (i.e. it makes an argument) I will gladly extend it and,
if
the debater tells me to, impact it as a voting issue.  Feel free to make
use
of your evidence, but if you ask me to vote on it, I will most likely
call
for a copy (in-case is fine) to confirm its content.  Evidence during
rebuttals is fine.

   REBUTTALS
Most important part of the round.  I think that the 1AR must (A) Clash
with
arguments in the NC and (B) offer reasons to negate arguments independent
of
a debater's original case positions.  I do not want to hear "Cross-Apply"
or
some facsimile multiple times in a rebuttal; give me unique arguments
pertaining to the other debater's case.  Also, I'm not a fan of stickies
for
rebuttals.  I'd like to see debaters advance their own arguments against
the
specific manner in which their opponents advance their case positions.  
PLEASE extend arguments if they are (A) dropped and (B) important.  I
will
not extend an argument out of your case into the 2AR, you must do it in
the
rebuttal following the drop.  With that, I will easily vote on drops if
they
impact the round and the criterion; it makes my job easier.  As far as
negative voters in the NR go, you can give them either (A) down the flow
as
you cover or (B) at the end of your rebuttal; if you choose to do them
down
the flow just make it clear that you are making argument-x a voting
issue.  
The 2ar should address negative voting issues, but can do so either (A)
directly or (B) through independent aff voters.  I am hugely against new
arguments in the 2AR...if you make them, I will drop you with horrid
speaker
points...somebody's gotta take a stand!

   PRESENTATION
Debate jargon ("extend," "impact," "turn," etc.) is much easier for me to
follow in the round: use it at will.  I have no preference at all for
rate of
delivery.  I enjoy a slow round as much as a fast round.  I wouldn't go
so
far as to say that I would encourage debaters to spread, but I definitely
do
not mind at all!  I think it breaks the monotony of debate to spread;
however, if you do spread, make sure to spread well.  This means that
your
arguments (while multiple) need to (A) not be redundant and (B) have
warrants.  I wouldn't be inclined to vote for a neg spread if the spread
didn't meet the above criteria.  However, I will drop an aff debater for
his/her inability to cover a good spread.  This isn't a license to speed,
though;  aff can still win spread rounds by going big-picture and/or
choosing
only to answer meaningful arguments.  Just make sure you impact in 2AR.
 As
long as you are clear, I will flow spread-speed.  I think the best
debater is
the one who can spread the negative out in the 1AR; that'd be cool to
see.  
It also makes a 2AR easy.  So the premise here is that I don't care about
speed, just make it worthwhile to go fast.

   ALTERNATIVE/UNIQUE CASE POSITIONS
Unique case positions are welcomed with open arms.  "This argument isn't
educational" is NOT a response that will go on my flow to a unique or
original argument.  If someone gives me an interesting position, their
opponent should deal with it.  

   STUDENT/JUDGE INTERACTION
I will probably disclose my judging philosophy in the round; I especially
will if debaters ask.  I am completely open to debaters questioning me
after
the round, so long as an argument doesn't ensue.  My presence at a
tournament
that allows me to disclose will result in a disclosure; i will also give
brief oral critiques while i decide.  Feel free to ask me about anything
before the round.  If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques, then
please find me after the round to go over the flow, etc.  If you can find
your opponent, i'll disclose then, too.

   Any other questions don't hesitate to ask,
                  Patrick Fitch
                  Catonsville Asst. LD Coach
                  Johns Hopkins c/o 2005

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
From:           Chad Henson <dagii@excite.com>
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        Henson, Chad - LD Judge

Hello. I will be attending Towson University (near Baltimore) in the fall
on debate scholarship and am adding my name to the list of available
judges. I will model my paradigm the same as Mr. Fitch did, mostly to
reflect similarities in judging style. I did primarily LD in Texas (with
all that implies, yes), but also competed in Original Oratory and Foreign
Extemp.

Location: Towson, MD (near Baltimore)
Events: LD, OO, Extemp, CX (in that order)
Contact: Chad Henson, Dagii@excite.com

Qualifications:
Forum Moderator, LDdebate.com
Degree of Special Distinction, NFL
Instructor at Towson International Debate Institute
TFA State Qualified in LD
Numerous Breaks, FX, OO, LD
First Place, Towson University
Third Place, Snyder Fall Classic
Invitation to Arlington Round Robin
Runner Up, NFL District Congress
Top 10, NFL District LD

VALUES/CRITERIA
First, the Affirmative must have a value. The Negative does not need a
value (I assume that the Neg subsumes the Aff's in that case). However,
the Justice vs. Morality debate is boring and leaves nothing to vote on.
I look to criterion clash primarily. Whoever achieves the highest value
by getting the most of a quantifiable criterion wins the round. At least
75% of the debate should focus on arguments, and I prefer something
around 90%.

EVIDENCE
I flow cards (Name and content), and am willing to vote on them if the
contain warrents. I will not seek a copy of the card if asked to vote on
it - I assume that what I have on my flow is the actual content. If there
is an issue, evidentiary challenges are the job of the tab room - not
mine. I do require a source citation (Dr. Jones is fine, assuming that
Dr. Jones wrote the card in actuality), and qualifications may be asked
for in CX if an opponent wishes to argue the validity of sources.
Arguments can be made without evidence, but I would not suggest it. Claim
evidence adds credibility. Self-warrented evidence makes an entire
argument and adds credibility.

REBUTTALS
The 1AR must clash and provide reasons to reject the negation as well as
advocate the affirmation. Only X-apply something from your AC if it was
dropped. Otherwise, come up with something new to respond to your
opponent's arguments. I have no problem with "stickies" or blocks, as
long as they are responsive to the issue.

On the other hand, if a response you make applies in more than one area,
please tell me to X-apply it. If you don't do that, you may get called on
a technical drop when you really responded to the idea of the argument.

PLEASE EXTEND DROPPED ARGUMENTS!!! It makes my job real easy. I have no
problem extending case arguments through to the 2AR, but keep in mind
that the NEG gets an extra chance to respond if you don't pull it across
in the speech following the drop.

Please make sure to rebut evidence/warrants. Refer to the "Brown
Analysis" or the "Litvack Card". Also, please address the case proper.
Jumping around from contention to subpoint gives me a messy flow. Messy
flow = muddled round. Tell me where you are on the flow at all times.
"Look to Contention 2, Subpoint A, Brown Analysis..." That's what I like
to hear.

As for Neg Voters, I prefer them at the end of the NR. That keeps the
issues real easy and my flow pad nice and neat. That aside, I will ACCEPT
voters anywhere you choose to give them, including down the flow. Just
say, "make it my (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) voting issue. Always number so
your judge (and opponent) can refer to the issue in question with ease.

For the 2AR, please address key issues (kritiks, definitions,
VALUE/CRITERION CLASH, etc.) if there are any that are left unclear in
the round. After that, please go straight voters. Only yours. If you wish
to address a voter the NEG gave, you need to have a reason you're winning
the issue and make it a voter for you. It bothers me when AFF tries to
take advantage of the NEG inability to respond. If you feel tempted to
test my intelligence, please do so by making new arguments in the 2AR. I
won't drop you for it, but you'll get really bad speaks.

PRESENTATION
Please use debate jargon. I key my flow to certain words (extend or flow
across gets an arrow to your next speech, etc.) and using those words
keeps me from having to think as much as I would otherwise.

I love a spread, I hate blips. Therefore, make as many arguments as you
can with warrents. Please take this as a liscense to go as fast as you
can while speaking clearly. The human brain can comprehend 500 words a
minute, so I suggest that as a maximum.

ALTERNATIVE/UNIQUE CASE POSITIONS
I love kritiks and squirrels. Keep in non-offensive if plausible (I
wouldn't care much for a religion case, for example). Regardless, I
accept anything as valid unless their opponent challenges the validity of
the argument.

STUDENT/JUDGE INTERACTION
If the tournament allows me to disclose, I will do so. If not, I will be
happy to talk to you about your round as soon as I am allowed. See me in
the parking lot or cafeteria. Make sure to bring your flow and your
opponent if possible.

I trust students to time themselves appropriately. I cannot give time
signals regularly and pay the flow the attention it deserves.

We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the
ungrateful. We have done so much for so long, with so little, we are now
qualified to do anything with nothing.

________________________________________________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

From:           Michelin Christopher Massey <Michelin.Massey@Colorado.EDU>
To:             "Philip G. Kerpen" <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>,
                Issues Concerning HS Lincoln-Douglas Debate <ld-l@world.std.com>
Subject:        following the path of bietz...

in following with mike bietz, i will post my judging philosophy as well.
i wholeheartedly agree with both kerpen and bietz that open judging
philosophies (for the purpose of adaptation) is a good thing.  in a recent
discussion with an anonymous debater, i was informed that they do not like
to ask judges for their philosophy because they feel like the risk to
backlash is far to high.  i think that's sad.  additionally, i think that
this is good for people who may not know me (or those who may be one this
list from colorado).  since i will probably get out of colorado to judge a
couple of rounds and will indeed judge a couple of rounds here in 
colorado, i figure this is a good time to get this out in the open.

a note to phil: my policy judging philosophy will be sent to you too...

with that in mind...

Michelin Massey - Judging Philosophy for HS L/D-Value Debate.
University of Colorado-Boulder Speech and Debate.

i'm a standard flow judge.  this has a few implications for the debaters:
1) like bietz, i will know when you are lying.  i think he has made it
abundantly clear what that means.  2) i can flow the debates as fast as
you (the debater) can deliver them.  just know that if you are going to
speak more quickly, i _expect_ you to still have meaty and substantial
analysis, impact comparisons, etc.  additionally, if you are going to spew
or even speak more slowly PLEASE speak clearly!  if i have yelled "clear"
more than once, you should know that i am not flowing anymore.  just know,
just to reiterate, that just because i can flow speed (and even enjoy a
fast L/D round (as much as a slow one)!!!) that does not mean i am in
favor of poor analysis.  3) the debaters SHOULD NOT drop significant
points on the flow.  i want to know exactly where you are and what i
should know when i am there (i.e. what should i be writing?).  note: even
though a point may not be significant in your mind, if something is
dropped, arguments _can_ be made important.  and, i will buy that line of
analysis all day long; and, twice on Sundays.  i also do not take any pity
on an affirmative or negative who may get "spread out" of a debate
(whether they be spread slowly by phat word economy or quickly with poor
or phat word-economy).

by the way, (i know this is kind-of out of order), i do prefer more
philosophical approaches to l/d debates.  of course, that is not
necessary, but a strong command over philosophy, good evidence, and
analysis are all things i look for in making sure debaters are doing their
job.  examples are welcome, but again, not necessary for victory...

in the end of the debate (last couple minutes of the NR and the 2AR), the
debaters (yes, you!) are expected to clearly show the arguments you want
me to weigh in my decision calculus.  i _don't_ mean "crystalize."  tell
me what your position is on that particular issue, what your opponent's
position is, and WHY your position is better than your opponent's.  you
can do this is in a "three reasons" rebuttal style (which i personally
employ) or a flow-based, policy-esque style.  the big thing to know is, i
really, really _hate_ to intervene and weigh the debate the way i would've
if i was debating.  if i wanted to debate, i wouldn't have made the trip
here today.  don't force me to intervene.  and, if you've got questions,
i've got answers.

final note: if you have a penchant for running racist, classist, sexist,
or anti-semitic arguments, i think you will have a tough time winning the
round (an automatic loss is given); or, getting very many speaker points
above _2_.  BUT, if winning, performing well, or being perceived as a
rational human being are not your goals, then go right ahead and yell as
many slurs as you can.

most of all, have fun, debate well, and do your best!  that's the only
thing i can ask from any of you...

michelin massey.
university of colorado-boulder.

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Mon, 11 May 1998 10:56:46 -0500
From:           Cory Puuri <CPuuri@jjkeller.com>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        LD Puuri, Cory

I did LD only once in HS but that doesn't mean I'm clueless. 

I've judged LD for roughly 6 years now. Pretty extensively I might add.
Unfortunately, although I did do I.E.s in HS (and quite successfully I
might add), because of my CX background, I kept getting pushed into the LD
judging pool after HS. 

Although I dislike the structure (or lack there of) of LD
constructives/rebuttals. I am fairly well versed on the philosophers and
am competent at flowing. 

I am a flow judge.  I don't care about speed, just be clear and impose as
much structure as possible (I hate flowing narratives).  I do know the
role of the value and the criteria in a LD debate. 

That should be enough, right?

Cory
Appleton West Debate

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:           Lionel Rivera <lrdebater@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:       ld-l@europe.std.com
To:             ld-l@europe.std.com
Subject:        JUDGING PREFERENCE POSTED

I am in complete agreement with the theory that says
that all judges should post a judging philosophy.  I
am also in favor of oral critiques and disclosures
after all rounds.  I think it does not undermine
debate at all, but instead enhances it and helps to
preserve it as a form of intellectual discourse.  with
that said, I have decided to post my judging
philosophy so anyone I may judge in the future will
have a better understanding of what I'm looking for. 
This may particularly interest all debaters who will
be attending the Colorado Round Robin and tournament
since ill be judging at both.  I may also judge at
Manchester.

BACKGROUND
I did LD debate for 3 years of high school.  I
competed at every level of debate, including
nationally.  I attended such tournaments as
Glenbrooks, Emory, Harvard, St. Mark's, TOC, etc... 
Therefore, I am familiar with and a believer in the
circuit style.  This will become more apparent
throughout the email.

PHILOSOPHY
I believe that an LD debate round is won at the top of
the flow.  An argument only matters if it impacts the
correct standard.  In other words, theoretically a
debater who has convincingly won 1 argument could beat
a debater who has won 100 arguments if the previously
mentioned 1 is the only one in the round that impacts
the standard that will serve as my calculus.  To use
more generic LD jargon, by standard I mean the
criterion/a.  In my opinion, the value premise and
criterion/a ought never be debated as an argument. 
They are the standards for the round.  When attacking
the value structure in the proper, never discuss why
your opponent can't achieve it.  Argue that it's a bad
calculus for me to use when writing my ballot and that
even if they get it it doesn't matter.  Also, I
actually like debates where both debaters agree on the
criterion/a and simply debates who achieves it in the
end.  When reading your case in the 1NC, don't be
nervous to simply tell me that you agree with your
opponent's standard.  However, any arguments that
appear there are alive too and independently
extendable.  Make sure you don't drop any theory type
argumentation at the top of the flow.

I will always make decisions strictly off the flow.  I
definitely require a line-by-line/proper all the way
throught until the 1NR (except in the 1AC of course.) 
The 2AR should obviously crystalize but can and in my
opinion should refer to specific arguments in the
proper.  Also, the 2AR absolutely should extend any
important dropped arguments made in the 1AR that were
not addressed by the 1NR.  Also, I will flow everyword
you say.  Do not be afraid to make multipointed
answers, and in your next speech don't be scared to
extend the number 5, 6, 7 etc...  It will be on my
flow.  However, if you are going to choose this route,
make sure our numbers correspond by using accurate
signposting.  *****NOTE*****:  In my eyes there is
absolutely NO excuse for not covering the affirmative
case in the 1NC.  Althought that won't directly
influence the decision and assure an affirmative
victory, it will be highly reflected on the negative
debaters speaker points.  

I am tolerant of speed.  If you can say it, I can flow
it.  However, not in the defense of the people who
would argue that this is an activity about
communication, but I think even though I can tolerate
speed and not drop someone strictly on the grounds
that they went too fast, there is still a level that
should not be exceeded.  I believe this level to be
intuitive and needing no explanation.

I have no problem with crystalization down the 1NR
flow as opposed to at the end of the 1NR.  Although i
prefer the crystalization to be at the end of the
speech, if it is clear and substantial, I wouldn't
mind it down the flow.

When it comes to types of arguments I like/buy, the
answer is none more than others.  I think once we are
in a debate round there is no a priori knowledge and
nothing we can take for granted.  Anything can be
defined in my eyes.  If there is a
position/case/argument that you have not run because
you're scared people won't "buy" it, when I'm in the
back of the room might be a good time to try it. 
Interesting/original case structures, critique type
arguments, etc... are all things I'd love to listen
to.  However, as with anything else you could run,
make sure you are not the only person in the room that
understands it.  Confusing your opponent until he cant
answer what you are saying is not debate.  Also, I
absolutely LOVE theory debate.  Debate about what
debate is can be soo much fun to listen to.  Don't be
afraid to make theory arguments either.  Also, I would
completely buy a overview/offcase argument if
presented right.  As long as it is relevant, impacts
the standard, and is presented well, the possibilities
are endless.  I will also allow for roadmaping in
every speech after the 1AC that will not count against
the time.  If the 1AC thinks they need to roadmap
cause their structure is that odd, hey, that's cool
too.   

About evidence, I think almost every good case should
contain some evidence.  However, it is not sufficient
as a unique response.  This, for example, would be
unacceptable.  "first argument calpability- 1. cross
apply my second card from case that says thats not
true. 2. cross apply my thrid card from contention 2
that says the opposite is true etc..."  What does that
mean?  Evidence should be used to support your
thoughts/arguments.  However, if there is a piece of
evidence in case that supposrts a claim you make and
adds a claim/warrant as well, it is fair game to
extend and an opponent should answer it.  

Finally, have fun and be nice to eachother.  I know
this sounds a bit cheesy and I was'nt always that way
in rounds, but the reason we do/did debate is because
at some point we found it fun.  Maybe we don't find it
as fun as seniors looking for TOC bid #2, but we still
stick around, and your opponent in a round is there
trying to learn and have fun like you.  Don't be
rude!!!  Also, sleazing will not be tolerated when I
am judging!!!!  If you drop an argument, you dropped
it.  You can attempt to outweigh it, but even when
doing this be careful.  It could be taken the wrong
way.  Be very clear as to what you are doing.

Anyways, hopes this helps and if you find that I left
anything out in this email feel free to post the
question or backchannel me.

Lionel Rivera
Harvard '04    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to 'majordomo@world.std.com' with the
single phrase 'unsubscribe ld-l' in the message body. For digest
subscribers the phrase should be 'unsubscribe ld-l-digest'
Address other inquiries to ld-l-owner@world.std.com

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:57:46 -0400
From:           Ben Shultz <shultz@fas.harvard.edu>
Reply-To:       ld-l@europe.std.com
To:             LD Listserv <ld-l@world.std.com>
Subject:        Another Judging Philosophy

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

I should be doing homework right now, but instead I will take some time out
to post my judge philosophy. I, like others, stongly believe that debaters
should know what judges are looking for.

Name: Ben Shultz

Location: I primarily judge in the Boston and New York areas, but have been
known to show up at national circuit tournaments in warmer locations when
someone else pays for my plane ticket.

What I Look For: At the end of the round i look at what arguments have been
extended and impacted to the value criteria. If you do not have a value
criteria, you should at least appeal to some sort of *explicit* weighing
mechanism. If neither debater gives me a weighing mechanism, i will be
forced to pick one of my own. I don't like doing this, and I make no
guarantees as to its objectivity.

After the value criteria, the next most important thing for me is evidence.
I am a firm believer in the "Jason Baldwin Evidentiary School of Thought."
For those of you that haven't been to the Kentucky Institute, this means
that I expect *all* empirical claims to be backed up by empirical evidence.
HS debaters (and their judges) are generally not experts in whatever field
they are making an empirical claim in. Thus, i expect you to cite someone
who *is* an expert in that field. This does not mean that you can blindly
read cards and expect me to buy your arguments; I certainly expect debaters
to supplement evidence with there own analysis (though I am sympathic to
cards that contain analysis within them). What this does mean, however, is
that given two debaters with differing empirical claims, I will give
significant weight to the side that offers empirical evidence to support
their side.

With respect to style, I am a hardcore flow judge. Speed (within the limits
of reasonability, though i have fairly high tolerance for this) is generally
not an issue. Speaking style may get you an extra speaker point if you're
particularly engaging, but it does not factor into my decisions. What I am
looking for then is for you to refute and extend arguments, then impact them
during crystalization.

Random Things: I don't like balance negs and i think they are almost always
abusive. Nevertheless, if you run a balance neg I will not drop you if your
opponent does not make the abuse argument. If he/she does, you're out of
luck.

Other than that, I'm pretty receptive to whatever wierd things you want to
do: theory arguments, straight refuation negs, crystalizing as you go in NR.

To sum up, i'm basically looking for national circuit style with perhaps a
bit more ephasis on evidence than the average circuit judge.

Ben Shultz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to 'majordomo@world.std.com' with the
single phrase 'unsubscribe ld-l' in the message body. For digest
subscribers the phrase should be 'unsubscribe ld-l-digest'
Address other inquiries to ld-l-owner@world.std.com

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

From:           tshuman@ccp.com
Date:           Mon, 11 May 98 08:24:48 -0500
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        LD Judging Philosophy

Inasmuch as LD debate is not so convention-bound as CX (thank God),
there isn't much for me to say here.  The following are the beliefs
which shape my perception of what takes place in an LD round....

1.  There is no "right way" to "do" Lincoln/Douglas debate.  Debaters
    are free to argue for whichever model they prefer, but any claims
    regarding what an opponent "must" do will be summarily dismissed.

2.  Both debaters have an obligation to clash with their opponents'
    arguments.  Given the structure of LD debate, however, the 
    Negative debater is more responsible for ensuring clash than the
    Affirmative:  If there is *no* clash in the round, the Negative 
    debater will very likely lose.

3.  Evidence can be helpful in supporting arguments.  In almost no
    instance will it be considered dispositive on an issue.  This is
    especially so regarding quotations from any of the Great 
    Philosophers LDers are so fond of citing.  Please do not treat
    quotations from such people as if they were trumps in a game
    of cards.

4.  I generally do not flow LD rounds.  Please do not assume that
    I am not paying attention, or that I will not be able to sort out
    the contending arguments.

5.  Incivility of any sort will be ruthlessly punished.  Nuking your
    speaks is only the *beginning* of my response to such behavior.
    Play nice, or be prepared to deal with the consequences.
    
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall
as I used to be,

Terrance Shuman
Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School
St. Joseph, Missouri

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:           Andrew Torrez <patorrez@email.com>
Reply-To:       ld-l@europe.std.com
To:             ld-l-digest@world.std.com
Subject:        Andrew Torrez - Judging Philosophy (very long)

I usually give this spiel to the debaters before the round begins.  Note: 
my wife (Terri) and my sister (Carla) also judge this event on the circuit,
and their philosophies undoubtedly differ from both mine and each other's. 
Make sure you know which Torrez you have. :)

I.  Analysis

You can't win my ballot without having the superior analysis in the round. 
To that end, I'd encourage you to read the first half of Alex Weaver's
judging philosophy; I endorse it wholeheartedly.  Specifically:

1.  Value/Value Criteria clash.  This is always the most important issue in
the round.  It is nearly always the first item I list on the RFD (unless
there are major problems with the round, such as a negative who gives a
7-minute prewritten speech or some such).  The debater who wins this line
almost always wins my ballot.  Of course, in many rounds, neither debater
wins the value clash.

This present resolution (hate speech) is the first one in recent years where
there was almost no opportunity for a debater to win the value clash.  Most
resolutions *aren't* like that, even if both debaters pretty much agree to
punt them in the round anyway.  I find that a pity.

Do NOT run a completely worthless empty shell of a value ("Justice as giving
each their due" people; I'm talking to you).   Link the value to the words
of the resolution.  Explain your value with a criterion/criteria that (a)
narrows the scope of your value, (b) explains how one achieves your value,
and (c) links to the specific arguments you make in your contentions.

2.  Impacts.  I can keep a great flow; I flow cards, taglines, analysis, the
works.  In order to intervene as little as possible, I will not do ANYTHING
with the arguments on the flow unless you tell me what to do with them.  If
you just blip out "extend" or "drag this across", I'll do it -- but I can't
promise that said dragged argument will have much weight in the final
analysis.  (Yes, I understand the time crunch on the Affirmative; if you go
for drops in 1AR, I'm expecting a mighty fine 2AR to pull it together.)

The very best thing to do is impact in light of your value/value criterion
while extending the argument.  Make it unquestionably important.

I buy groupings, cross-applications, and "I addressed the
substance/link/warrant of this argument elsewhere" if specifically made by
the debater.

In general, I'm one rosy table.

3.  Analysis.  If the debaters fail to give me a clear standard for weighing
the arguments advanced in the round, I'm going to have to pick one based on
my own preferences.  Generally, that involves looking to the debater who
showed the strongest depth and quality of analysis on the issues.  That
doesn't have to be in opposition to flow coverage -- the very best debaters
do both, obviously -- but in a muddled round I'm going for analysis first,
flow second.  What impresses me most?  Solid analysis of philosophy and
application to the round.  (See below.)

4.  Flow coverage.  If both debaters advanced roughly the same quality of
arguments, with similar plusses and minuses, and neither really gave me a
good V/VC standard to judge the round, I will sometimes look to the flow to
see if there's a disproporationate lack of coverage on one side of the flow.
I REALLY hate playing "count up the dropped arguments," though, and I'm not
likely to give you much in the way of speaks here.

Understand and label for me the difference between defensive and offensive
arguments.  If both debaters spend the entirety of the round arguing on one
side of the flow (say, the Aff), even if the Neg case goes mostly dropped,
I'm likely to vote Aff based on comparative advantage if there are no
extended and impacted offensive args on the Neg.  In other words:  if the
whole round boils down to the question of "Is the Aff right?", then any
miniscule chance that the answer is "yes" is going to get an Aff ballot. 
These sorts of rounds are rare, but they do happen.

5.  Philosophy.  I love it.  I buy it as a top-of-the-flow issue,
particularly deontology vs. teleology.  Flip side:  I hate it when used
improperly.  If you're going to use Kant, for example, I expect citations to
either one of his works (I know, he's a windbag; the _Groundwork_ isn't too
bad) or to a treatise specifically analyzing Kant.  If you use the debate
institute shorthand formula (i.e., the "Golden Rule" or the "Do we all share
in the ends?"), I'm likely to just drop the whole argument out.

I will never intervene and drop a debater based on his misuse of philosophy
if uncontradicted by the opponent.  I may not even drop speaks all that
much.  But I do throw the argument out of the round.

Same thing, incidentally, with evidence quoted grotesquely out of context. 
Read the original article; don't just cite the briefs.  I drop the argument
out the round.

6.  Evidence, appropriateness of.  I often find myself circling the rule on
the ballot (when it's there) that the debaters need to use logical
argumentation THROUGHOUT and evidence WHERE NECESSARY.  Here's my dividing
line:

GOOD:  Debater A makes an value claim which depends on the ends ("We have a
moral obligation to educate every student equally").  Debater A makes an
empirical argument supporting that value claim ("Hate speech undermines the
ability of some to get an equal education").  Debater A then provides
empirical evidence to support the previous argument.

BAD:  Debater A makes a value claim ("Freedom is bad"), and then reads a
card out of some handbook instead of using his or her own analysis.

Incidentally, I think this is good advice for writing 1ACs, too.  Look for
cards that specifically evidence your empirical assertions.  Shy away from
cards with great-sounding rhetoric that just make the same unevidenced claim
you could have made on your own.

7.  Evidence, use of.  In general, I find that cards in rebuttals are less
persuasive than analysis unless they specifically redress a disputed issue. 
Example:  AFF says "John Stuart Mill favored restricting hate speech"; NEG
says, "No he didn't, he loved all speech"; AFF in 1AR reads a card from Mill
explaining the speech he thought could be restricted.

II.  Speaker Points

In general, I give out speaks on the basis of good analysis, not pretty
oratory.  I will make comments on your oratory to the extent that it
undermines your ability to make your arguments stick.  The biggest comment I
give to younger debaters is some version of "write your own cases!" --
nothing is less persuasive than someone who can't make it through the big
words in their own quotes or stumbles repeatedly over their 1AC.

I do not give out high speaks to LDers who ought to be in OI; i.e., the
folks who say nothing but say it very prettily.

I dock speaks when debaters mis-analyze philosophy, use evidence out of
context, lie in rebuttals, suffer massive lapses of organization, etc.

Speed is fine if you can handle it.  I find myself writing "Slow down a lot
-- you're stumbling over your own words!" on ballots quite frequently,
though.

My speaker point scale is pretty consistent.  Below 25, you've got two or
more major problems with analysis, procedure, argumentation, the rules of
the event, whatever.  At 25, you're competent for the tournament.  A 26-27
reflects generally good analysis, but with one serious problem (i.e.,
coverage, application of V/VC, whatever).  A 28 means the analysis was very
good overall, with at least one piece of exceptional analysis, but one or
more smaller problems.  A 29 means consistently great skills with minor
problems, and a 30 indicates a performance I would rate as the best at the
tournament.  I'm not one of these never-give-a-30 judges; nor am I the kind
of judge who awards them frequently.

III.  General Comments

Okay, here's a grab-bag (for those of you still reading) of miscellaneous
issues and things applying in the debate round:

1.  Flow games.  OK, this happened in a round recently.  NEG gives a
micro-case and puts out nearly 5 minutes of responses on the AFF.  1AR
answers the whole block.  NR drops a bunch of the AFF answers.  In this
case, I'm probably going to vote AFF, all other things being equal.  This is
the "If you're going to shoot at the king, you'd better make sure you don't
miss" principle.

2.  "EXTEND this card."  Bleah.  Hey, if the Neg's responses really are
crappy, then feel free to show how your original argument still stands,
impact, and extend the card.  But just saying "Extend the Matsuda card" 10
times in the 1AR is worthless.  Have we come full circle to the point where
the weakest novice crutch (rereading one's own case in rebuttals) is now a
winning strategy?

Evidence plays a role in an argument -- see above.  But just because a
specific card is uncontradicted doesn't mean that the warrant or link hasn't
been challenged, or that the impact isn't already outweighed, or what have
you.

In short:  extend the analysis, not the card.

3.  One-contention affirmatives.  I don't understand this strategy, and I
don't like it.  I like it even less when the contention tagline is a totally
worthless statement like, "The Affirmative is true."  This is just a pet
peeve, not an RFD.

4.  Jargon.  I know it, and I'm resigned to accept it.  That being said, use
it correctly.  If you label something a 'turn' in the round, it better darn
well be a turn.  If you say, the 'impact' is X, the impact better in fact be
X.  If A is the 'criterion' to B, make sure it really is.  And so on. 
Similarly, don't lie about drops or cross-ex agreements.

IV.  Disclosures

Come find me, along with your opponent, after the round.  I'll gladly reveal
decisions, go over the flow with you, critique arguments, etc., if that's
what you want.

Feel free to ask anything here, too.

-Andrew Torrez
Catonsville HS

-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to 'majordomo@world.std.com' with the
single phrase 'unsubscribe ld-l' in the message body. For digest
subscribers the phrase should be 'unsubscribe ld-l-digest'
Address other inquiries to ld-l-owner@world.std.com

Admin Args Case Lists Invites Judges Miscellany Results Theory TOC Topics
Back to the main page

Date:           Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:           Alex Weaver <weave26ld@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:       ld-l@europe.std.com
To:             ld-l-digest@world.std.com
Subject:        Alex Weaver Judging Philosophy - pretty long

Before I share my judging philosophy, I would like to
reiterate how important it is that other people also
post their own philosophies on the ld-l.  It may take
a little of your time, but in order to avoid
situations like the one being discussed right now, I
feel that sacrificing the little time it takes to post
is worth it.

That said...

Alex Weaver
Assistant LD Coach - WDM Valley
Judging Philosophy

I am as much of a tabula rosa judge as I can be.  I
can handle any debating style you choose to use, from
"dueling oratories" to the spread and everything in
between.  I try to avoid intervention as much as I
can.  I'd like to be able to say that if you win the
round, I'll pick you up, but of course who 'wins' the
round is subject to interpretation.  That said, some
guidelines need to be set up as to how I make my
decision.

HOW TO PICK UP MY BALLOT

1) Impact.  Too often I find myself staring at the
flow with a bunch of arguments on both sides that
aren't impacted well or simply ignore the actual
argumentation that is happening on the flow.  Put
simply, tell me which of your arguments are important
and why.  Do it before the 2AR.  I want to hear that
the extension of your contention 2 sub A is the most
important argument in the round right when you extend
it.  This puts perspective on all the rest of the
argumentation in the round.

2) Value/Criterion.  The roles of the value and
criterion is an important one in debate, and there are
differing schools of thought on what exactly those
roles are.  Let me give you my perspective.  The value
premise is the big, overarching argument the
resolution is trying to achieve.  Ultimately it should
be achievable to both the aff and the neg.  I think
the best debates come when both sides agree on a value
and argue about who achieves it better.  The
criterion, however, is something that can be a little
biased toward your side of the resolution, because it
is the magnifying glass through which you as the
affirmative or as the negative look at the value.  It
is your perspective, so to speak.  Therefore, all of
your argumentation ought to link to your value through
your criterion.  Moreover, your criterion becomes the
most important thing in your case because without it,
you can't put any perspective on any of your
argumentation.

3) Links.  Links are very important to the structure
of any debate round.  Not only does your case have to
be well linked to your criterion, but your rebuttals
do as well, obviously.  I just don't give as much
weight to arguments that aren't well linked or
impacted as I do to those that are.

4) Harms/weighing.  To be honest, nearly every debate
that I've participated in boils down to a harms debate
in the end, so I think it's important for me to talk
about.  I think that in the end, the impacting and
weighing of the harms is more important than the harms
itself.  If I am presented with fifty harms that
aren't well impacted, or just don't matter to me all
that much versus one harm that is hugely impacted and
is very important to the round, I'll vote for the side
that impacts and weighs harms well every time.  Thus,
sometimes it may seem like you are winning the harms
debate, and it may even seem like you are winning the
flow, but if you don't impact well and don't weigh the
harms out for me, you really aren't winning the round.

HOW TO DROP MY BALLOT

There really aren't many rules I have as far as
dropping people on face are concerned.  In fact, I
never ever drop people just because I don't like their
style, or argumentation, or whatever.  I vote on
argumentation in round; I vote on impacts.  Unethical
behavior in rounds can be dealt with with speaker
points.  However, the W is something that really ought
not be influenced by people just kind of going "I
don't like your style, you lose..."

SPEAKER POINTS

HOW TO GET GOOD SPEAKS

I try to give speaker points out the way teachers
would give out grades, using the following formula:

30=A+
29=A
28=B
27=C
26=D
25=F

I think that this method of giving out speaker points
is a good one, it has done well for me in that when I
look at the tab sheets after a tournament, I seem to
be right in the middle of the road for speaks.  I am
neither a point scrooge nor a point fairy.

Speaker points are, in my view, a measure of how
persuasive you are to me.  This justifies low point
wins and things like that.  If you win the flow but
just spread your opponent and things like that, you
will get the W from me, but because you weren't very
persuasive, you won't get good speaks.  Maybe you'll
get a 27.  Maybe lower.  Conversely, if you just lose
the argumentation but you still spoke very
persuasively, you will lose the round but will get
good speaks.  Speaker points ought to be totally
separate from the W/L column in debate.  Most of the
time, they coincide.  Sometimes, they ought not.

HOW TO DROP SPEAKS

Unethical behavior is something I frown severely upon
in a round.  Debate is, after all, an educational
activity and a school one as well.  Instead of trying
to win all the time, sometimes we ought to step back
and look at exactly what kinds of things we are doing
in order to pick up the coveted W.  Here are a few
examples of unethical behavior in rounds:

1. Lying.  (Saying that your opponent dropped
something when they clearly did not.)

2. Swearing. (On this current topic, people actually
use hate words as an example of hate speech.)

3. Belligerency in Cross-ex.

There are a lot of other things, but those really are
my pet peeves.

I think ethical behavior is extremely important in a
debate round, and as such will punish unethical
behavior with an automatic two point deduction in
speaks.

Don't misinterpret me, I don't want you coming into
the round fearing for your life or anything.  It is
rare, if ever, that I actually am forced to deduct
speaks.  But if you're thinking of dropping the n-bomb
in a round that I'm judging, think again.

DISCLOSURE AND ORAL CRITIQUES

Debate is an educational activity, and I think that
everyone should do all in their power to maximize that
education.  Also, during a tournament, all competitors
want to know what they need to improve on or what they
need to emphasize more in order for them to do well in
the tournament they are competing in.  For both of
these reasons, I disclose my decision after every
debate round unless one of the debaters requests me
not to.  This is because I simply am incapable of
giving a good oral critique without disclosing.  Too
often debaters get orals that consist of "Good job,
good rebuttal..." and nothing more.  That just is not
educational.  Instead, what needs to be done is an
overview of the argumentation in round, an evaluation
of what arguments mattered in my decision and why, and
ultimately a RFD that both debaters understand.  This
doesn't happen on the ballot.  Sometimes, especially
with my messy handwriting, debaters can't even read
the ballot, much less glean educational material from
it.

To sum it all up, I consider myself to be a pretty
good judge.  I am as tabula rosa as you can get, and I
give pretty good speaks.  I recognize debate as the
educational activity that it is, and ultimately, I
(hopefully) pick up the right person.  I look forward
to seeing you all at tournaments in the future.

Keep it real.

Alex Weaver
Assistant LD Coach
WDM Valley High School

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to 'majordomo@world.std.com' with the
single phrase 'unsubscribe ld-l' in the message body. For digest
subscribers the phrase should be 'unsubscribe ld-l-digest'
Address other inquiries to ld-l-owner@world.std.com