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
|
