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
|
