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

   
   






Date:           Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:11:09 -0500 (EST)
From:           Stefan Bauschard <bauscsa4@wfu.edu>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: Call for Judging Philosophies





I judge the best when the debaters debate well.  If your arguments don't
make sense then the decision probably won't either.  If you work hard to
speak clear, articulate your arguments, organize them on the flow then
I'll work hard to make a good decision.  If you just "spew" a "dump" all
over the case I won't take the time to sort through all of the shit to
make a decision that is 10x as good as the debate.  I'll work as hard as
you do in the debate.

I never read evidence I can't understand.  I never give above a 26 to a
debater's whose evidence I can't understand.  I ignore arguments that I
don't think the other team had a prayer of understanding.  Don't try to
adapt to me in this regard on a panel because the other judges will just
read all of the cards anyhow.

Don't re-explain your arguments and don't summarize your arguments.
Instead, compare them to the other side's arguments and explain why they
are better.  

With the exception of "renewable energy" most of the topicality arguments
on this topic are just plain bad.  I don't care if the case is "effects"
topical if the affirmative has a card that says the plan should be done to
increase renewable energy.  I don't care if the affirmative "makes
something firm"  And what in the world is substantial?  If you need
topicality to win on the negative on this topic you need to buy some
debate handbooks.

I've voted on critiques this year although I don't see them as much of a
reason to vote negative.  Affirmatives should argue that the critique has
almost zero implication when I'm judging. 

Don't try to win through intimidation.

Even if you debate like shit you are still doing more than most of your
peers.  Never forget that.

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

Date:           Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:02:19 
From:           Dheeraj Chand <minorsecond@hotmail.com>
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        Judging Philosophy

Hey,
 
For what it may be worth, here's the way that I consider the dynamics of
a debate round when rendering a decision as to whom I think was a better
communicator.  Of course, these are all purely my personal opinions, b/c
I do my bloody best to be a tabula rasa oriented judge: therefore, they
have no implication on how I vote.
 
CX, Passing, Prompting, Prep, Etc.
 
I'm so laid back on this that it's not even funny.  Actually, the only
reason that it would be remotely considered funny is b/c it's still an
issue in some places!  Go for it: it's a two-person debate. So far as I'm
concerned about prep time...Ask questions back and forth during prep,
it's not a big deal. Also, I personally believe in giving out ten minutes
of prep. What's good enough for Greenhill's tournament is good enough for
me.[IMAGE] I personally believe that debate lends itself to competetive
assertiveness, but that's not necessarily the equivalent of rudeness.
Have no fear: I won't take off speaker points w/o warning you first,
though.
 
Counterplans
 
By all means, feel free to provide a counter-proposal...or several.  Be
warned: I will follow the theory debate carefully...And I pretty much
know it all, baby.
 
Topicality
 
Guys, I hate to say it, but I'm a sucker for RVI's on this. Call it 1AR
sympathy. Saying those three letters isn't enough, though. Explain it.
Also, I have no problems with voting on T. 
 
Criticisms
 
Saying the names of philosophers and the word "kritik" isn't enough to
grant you a victory. Explain your criticism, the implications, and the
alternatives in a logically compelling fashion and you've got my
attention.  I have a personal fondness for Derridean criticisms,
criticisms based on Heidegger and Lyotard, and rhetorical criticisms. 
I'm not so much a fan of Foucauldian criticisms, feminist criticisms from
the McKinnon/Dworkin (BIG UPS TO CAMILLE PAGLIA!) wing of the movement,
or criticisms rooted in theories of "deep ecology"...Also, be warned that
I am not a fan of the politics of identity...Also, if you want me to
consider things from an "often silenced perspective", e.g. the
Afrocentric narrative on history, be prepared to explain it damn well
besides saying "we need to listen to other voices". Tell me what those
voices are, and how their view differs from the socialised norm.
 
Utility/Deontology
 
Hey, I can see both sides of the picture. Win this debate on the flow,
and you've got me.
 
Case Impacts vs DA's and CP's
 
Weigh them, and explain it. Remember that presumption goes to the
negative. Affirmatives had better put out some offense in the 2AC...
 
"Moral Repugnance"
 
I really don't think that you want me to vote on what I think is moral.
Telling me that something is morally repugnant is not an argument, it's
the prelude to an argument.  As such, I will not automatically vote down
racist, sexist, classist, (random group here) -ist rhetoric or
advocacies/  The other team must run some kind of "ethics" violation and
impact it.  I will not do it for you.  This is not to say that I won't
have strong words for the offender after the round, but my personal
opinions on metaphysics do not affect my assignation of the victory or
speaker points.
 
Speed
 
Go for it. There are currently only two debaters that I know whom I have
trouble keeping up with, and both of them are beautifully clear. It's my
own failure. I challenge anyone to try and spread me out of a round.
 
Post-Round Evidence Reading
 
You know, I really prefer not to do this. Once I'm reading a card, I'm
automatically analysing it and creating arguments out of it. THIS IS YOUR
JOB, NOT MINE. I'll do it, but I must agree with Doyle Srader here.
Specify exactly which card it is you want me to read, where in the round
it occurred, and what I'm supposed to get out of it.
 
Best of luck to all of you in debate. It's a lovely experience, and can
be rewarding for the rest of your life.
 
-dc
 
 
 
 

________________________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

From:           Joseph_Coppola@baylor.edu
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Re: Call for Judging Philosophies

Joseph Coppola
I have to be persuaded that there is unique abuse to vote on topicality.  I
will vote on anything as long as there is some justification for it.  I won't
vote for teams who don't understand their own arguments or don't explain them
to me in a fashion in which I can understand.  I leave the debaters the
opportunity to justify counterplan theory to me.  Kritiks must have
implications when being first presented and they must be explained and
understood by the team running them. I will tell you when you are not clear,
but I would hope that you know your limits.

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

Date:           Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:43:13 EDT
From:           GrandNatl1@aol.com
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        NEW JUDGING PHILOSOPHY - PAT FITCH

    [ Part 1, Text/PLAIN  90 lines. ]
    [ Unable to print this part. ]

If you could post this new/updated philosophy (due to typos, stuff left
out, etc.) in the last one, I'd appreciate it.

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY - PAT FITCH

BACKGROUND
I debated for two years at Lake Highland Prep in Orlando, FL.  As a
result of my short-lived career, I'm continuing my involvement in LD
through writing for Victory Briefs, teaching at SNFI, and coaching at
Catonsville High School in Baltimore, MD (nearby I'm a freshman at Johns
Hopkins University).

VALUES
I'm not going to drop someone because they don't present a value
premise/core value - BUT, I think at least a criterion/standard is
extremely helpful in giving me a way to filter/weigh arguments on the
flow. 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.
 However, I will 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" is rarely
conclusive within the LD time framework and usually lacks substantive
analysis; look at the criterionandarguments, 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 (that's why it's there), 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 asnegative 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 choose to make them, don't count on being top
speaker...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.  You need to do what you think is necessary to win the
round.  In all honesty, I'd be more impressed with a solid slow-spread,
but do what you must.  If you choose to go fast, 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 forhis/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.  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" or "This isn't policy debate" are NOT responses that will go
on my flow against a unique or original argument unless you have some
killer unique/original warrants yourself (which probably performatively
contradicts, but oh well).  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.    

Thanks for reading - I'll be judging all over the place, especially in
the Northeast - so I hope this will be relevent/useful to most of you.  

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

From:           Jason Maxwell Friedman <jmfried@emory.edu>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: hey

My Philosohpy:
*********
	I am tabula rasa.  I will listen to and vote on anything.  I like
Kritik's and theory goo is fine.  In terms of background, I debated four
years for Bronx and now I debate for Emory. 
*********

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

From:           deon_garner@students.morehouse.edu
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Re:      DEBATERS-- Judging Philosphies Please!

Deon Garner
Morehouse College
CEDA 2.5 years
Years judging experience:
      Judged 4 prelims and through finals at TOC in Lincoln-Douglas
_____________________________________________________________________

      This paradigm is more or less the things that are going
to get you more speaker points (as it really is with any other
judging philosophy page).  If neither team does what I don't
like, I cannot drop them both.  
      Honestly, the round is the competitors' forum to do with 
what they so please AS LONG AS they uphold one of three sytems, the 
aff. proposition, the status quo., or a counterplan that indicts
both.  I am not a lazy judge; however, I am looking for the way
the vote that is going to make me feel confident that I made
the correct decision (i.e. the easiest way out).  I do prefer
to make the best decision based on which system has the greatest
risk of solvency and advantages and the least risk of disadvantages.
      The debate round is definitely an extension of the classroom.
It is a learning experience.  It is not 100% competitive as their
are no "professional debate associations" or jobs that needed
debaters.  So, the more "intelligent risks" one takes in the
round while I am sitting in the back the more points one receives--assuming
that the arguments are well developed and defined of course.

Specific issues:

AFF - Do what you want as long you uphold the resolution.  I
feel that the affirmative is bound to representating the resolution
in some manner.  Should, if defined and mechanized correctly,
does not HAVE to mean ought.  However, that is something can
be pressed in the round.  Moral imperatives are fine.  Don't
tell me, "You have a moral obligation to vote aff . . ." and
expect me to say, "duh . . . okay."  If the negative drops the
MO and shows me how the plan links to a disad and they win the
disad., evidently, that moral imperative is wrong.  Also, MIs
must assume the case.

NEG

DAs - Standard tool for negative.  They are not necessary; however,
when there is no solvency take out, that means aff gets the advantages,
unless turned, and they win--of course procedurals and kritiks
must be taken into account.  A DA IS NOT TURNED IF THE AFF DOES
NOT SOLVE!!  Many teams, even at the collegiate level, kick case
and "go for the turns."  How are you turning the DA?

T - Why not?  There has only been one round where I truly went
for T; other times were extend voter, dropped, easy way out,
etc.  There is no reason why there can't be a story on a T argument.
There are prima facie implications of T without mixing burdens.
T is NOT a priori; it is a posteriori.  A priori means prior
to experience, not "this comes first."  Since words have mulitple
meanings then the only way to determine if case is topical is
after we experience it . . . after we hear it.

J - I am not sure.  I've only heard this argument a few times.
When I was in LD in high school; I never heard any of my teammates
use the term or the argument.  It seems as if it is a blown-up
voter.  I don't know . . . proceed with caution . . . make your
arguments clear; you should be okay.

Kritik - As a philosophy major, I think kritiks are too underdeveloped
in the round.  Time constraints preclude true developement of
the issues within a kritik.  They are more than just value implications
that stem from Lincoln-Douglas debate.  Please run them.  I think
they are perfectly valid.  Kritiks do not have to have impacts;
the impact is its inherent "badness" (for lack of a better word);
however, a team must weigh that against the aff. impacts.  Moral
imperatives for affirmative have the same obligation; they must
outweigh whatever impact the disad(s) set(s) forth.  Implications
versus impacts.  Weighing MIs versus kritiks means weigh the
implications of each.  DO NOT RUN RESOLUTIONAL KRITIKS!  I WILL
NOT VOTE ON THEM!!  The affirmative should not be punished for
doing their job. (I feel the same way about Federalism DAs--when
appropriate of course--but if the link story is compelling I'll
buy it).

CP - Okay.  I think sometimes plan-plan theory is used to just
get the neg. out of CP requirements, sometimes unfairly, but
I let the round determine the issue.  Alternative actor CPs are
fine.  If your CP is let Spain do it and then you attack the
action of the plan, then you are destroying your own CP.  Perms
are tests of competition, but can be advocated.  Perm DAs and
turns are easy ways to get out of non-competition debates.

STRUCTURE - Adhere to the time limits, etc.  Speed is fine, clarity
is not.  I am fast, but I am clear too.  Rudeness is not tolerated.
I won't drop you--automatically, but I'll nuke your points. 
Open c-x is fine, as long as it does not turn into a vantriloquist
act.  I listen to c-x and note important things.

Anything else . . . please ask!!

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

From:           Raj Ghoshal <rghosha@emory.edu>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: Call for Judging Philosophies

here you go phil--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Raj Ghoshal
Emory University

Hi.  My name is Raj.  I debated 4 years in Illinois and now debate at
Emory.  I've judged about 25 rounds on this topic.

Topicality: It's okay.  If you're winning it go for it.

Counterplans: Most kinds of counterplans are okay as long as you are able
to defend them well.  Dispositionality, partial plan inclusiveness,
one-actor international fiat, consultation CPs, and agent CPs all may or
may not be legitimate depending on who debates their legitimacy better,
but I am likely to have a moderately high threshhold for voting against a
team just for running a CP like this.  I am a little less friendly toward
conditionality, and not too friendly at all toward multiple-actor
international CPs, delay CPs, etc.  These are merely my predispositions;
they are not rules, or anything close to rules.  In general the more
theoretically sketchy the CP, the more theoretically sketchy permutations
become okay.

Kritiks: Like 'em.  Doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to vote for them
more than anybody else.  Debating the specifics of the kritik is crucial
for both teams (links, impacts, implications); the "Deconstruction Bad"
block your coach wrote 4 years ago isn't good enough to win you the
debate.  Running kritiks that your disads link to may or may not be okay
depending on how you well you can defend this practice . . . oh yeah.  If
you're running a pretty high-tech kritik (say, Heidegger) you should
definitely sound like you know what you're talking about--there are few
things worse than bad kritik debates.

"Normal" issues: Nothing unusual here.  Impact analysis is important.

Communication issues: Speed is fine.  Clarity is key.  Persuasion matters.
If you can be funny you should be.  IF YOU CAN'T PLAY NICE, DON'T PLAY AT
ALL.  If someone from New Trier is reading this, please post this up next
to my picture on the wall--there is nothing like having a shrine . . .

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

From:           "Joshua A. Gonzalez" <gonzalez@umich.edu>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: If I judge you

Judging Philosophy for Josh Gonzalez

I am a firm believer in the idea that arguments and issues are best left
to debaters.  Admittedly, there are certain preferences which I hold
toward particular arguments and styles or argumentation.  However, I do
the best job I can to put them aside.  Kritiking,
conditionality/dispositionality, topicality, procedural abuse args, etc.,
are all issues that ought to be hashed out by the debaters.  If you win an
argument that I should vote on something, I generally will.  I tend toward
the "line-by-line", but that's becoming a meaningless phrase.  To me, it
means that a dropped argument is a conceded argument is a truth, insofar
as the round is concerned.  Don't try and push the envelope, though.
Stupid stuff just doesn't fly. 

As far as a paradigm/analog for my decsion making process, I guess I'm a
policy maker by default.  That means I compare policies at th end of the
round, aff policy and neg policy.  Make what you will of that statement.

Most important assumption you should have prior to the round is that I am
a complete and total moron.  So you should probably think about giving a
decent last rebuttal.  Which means that you should make arguments, instead
of pulling tag lines, and give me a reason for a decision.

I can flow, although I may not be able to flow you.  If I can't, I'll say
"clear".  Translation:  either clear up, slow down, or both.  If it's not
on my flow, it's not in the round.  If I couldn't understand the card,
don't expect me to call for it.  I don't necessarily have to be able to
write all of the card body during your speech, but I figure that I should
be able to understand it.  Clipping cards or underlining out articles and
conjunctions gets you max points of 25.  I should be able to hear
sentences in them.  This is really startig to piss me off this year.  I've
heard a ton of teams do it, and I'm fed up.  If I think you're doing it,
I'm gonna time your cards, and make you read them after the round.  If you
can't do it, don't expect friendly points.

Nothing is barred from the round, excepting the obvious examples of  
blatantly racist, misogynist or homophobic remarks.  Such practices
simply are not allowed, you will lose the round, you will get BAD speaks,
and there is no arguing with this policy.  Sorry, folks, I intervene here.

May God help you if my name appears next to yours on a schematic.
(kidding)

Josh Gonzalez
Asst Dir, Holland Debate, Michigan.

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

HANSON
 
Director of Forensics
Whitman College
hansonjb@whitman.edu
May 10, 1998
YEARS JUDGING DEBATE--18 YEARS (CEDA--11; NDT—5; PARLI--4; HS--15)
I have not judged HS debates since this past summer but I did edit 4 handbooks on the renewable energy topic, worked at 2 HS debate institutes, and lectured at 2 HS debate seminars.
POLICY JUDGING PHILOSOPHY
I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative proposal or framework versus those of the negative position or framework.
ARGUING DURING THE DEBATE

WEIGH--Please weigh the links and impacts. Explain why your advantage or disadvantage is more likely, more realistic, happens sooner, subsumes your opponent’s arguments, etc. This is especially importan

t in the 2NR and 2AR.
REREAD LINES IN EVIDENCE--Reread lines in both your and your opponent’s evidence--don’t paraphrase and don’t tell me to "read the card at the end of the round."
COMPARE EVIDENCE--State why the point your evidence makes is not defeated by the points in your opponent's evidence. Show your evidence has a specific scenario not accounted for by your opponent's argument, your evidence reflects a newer situati

on, your evidence undercuts an assumption in your opponent's argument, etc.
NO TAGLINE DEBATING--If all you say is "We solve" or "The B1 takes this out," or "Extend Jones," I will give your argument little weight. You need to explain why--for example, say, "We solve because as our A3 Simon evidence says, OTEC provides e

nergy," or "The B1 argument that troops cleanup environmental problems shows that we will not cause an environmental catastrophe."
CLEAR, PERSUASIVE SPEAKING. I want thesis statements before each position. Use clear, concise labels/tags for your arguments. I want you to read your evidence clearly and persuasively. If I cannot understand you, I will tell you ei

ther by contorting my face or out loud I will say "I cannot understand you." 
TAG TEAMING--Okay, but if one partner says very little during cross-examination that will hurt his or her speaker points and reduce your strength as a team.
CROSS-EXAMINATION--I love good series of questions that 1) expose holes in your opponent's knowledge and positions and 2) setup positions you will run and 3) compare your position to your opponent. 

OLD THEORY PROCEDURALS

I rarely, if ever vote for Hasty Generalization, Whole Resolution, Justification, "Intrinsic" arguments about affirmative harms, But/for arguments, Criteria is flawed, Reverse voters on Topicality, Pres

umption, etc.

I DISLIKE (AS IN, I MAY DOCK POINTS)

Arguments which advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people, Rudeness, "We are killing them" intros, and "They are stupid" comments. I also do not like swearing in a debate round. I reall

y dislike personal attacks on your opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss.

SPEED

If you are going to go faster than 2/3 to 3/4 speed, I am unable to follow the details of your arguments. I won't dock you but it is imperative that you have clear, slow thesis statements in at least

 the 2NR and 2AR for any position you want to win--or I may not get it at all. Also, I will just read cards at the end of the debate and put it together as I see it.

KRITIKS

I am willing to vote on kritiks assuming that the negative shows 1) the affirmative advocacy specifically links to the kritik; 2) the kritik truly does "trump" or outweigh the affirmative advocacy. I am

 rarely persuaded by claims that the kritik takes out the affirmative specific solvency, that it just is "a priori," etc. You need to explain and make good arguments why. Otherwise, I default back to standard policy making and just weigh.

WINNING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS

While I will vote for any reasonable affirmative interpretation, I will also vote for a reasonable negative topicality argument that proves that 1) the affirmative definitely violates a phrase/word in t

he topic and 2) that there is no reasonable interpretation that would make the affirmative topical. If the affirmative has an interpretation, you will need to show it is a bad interpretation that causes a serious consequence--like substantially expanding 

the research burden on the negative/making too many cases topical, making the topic non-sensible, etc. "Imprecise" or "Non-expert" will not suffice. If the negative does not prove these thi

ngs, I doubt I will vote on it.

EXCLUSION COUNTERPLANS
While I am not predisposed in favor of exclusion counterplans, I do think they are a good, defensible strategy. Counterplans that exclude a part of the mandates of the plan are usually on good ground. C

ounterplans that exclude part of the funding, enforcement, or some other aspect of the plan that isn't a requirement of the topic are tougher for negatives defend. Counterplans that add to or modify or condition mandates of the plan (Plan-inclusive counte

rplans) are also tougher for negatives to defend. The affirmative can try to argue that topical counterplans are not legitimate but that is rarely persuasive to me. I am more likely to be persuaded that exclusion counterplans intrude on affirmative ground

 and that the negative just gets to run disads against parts of the plan that they don't like rather than also get to capture the rest of the plan as their own.
REVERSE VOTERS/CONDITIONALITY

While I prefer consistent positions, think contradictions make a team look bad and I vote on doubleturns; I rarely vote on issues like "conditionality is bad" or "topicality is a reverse voter." I will 

do so only if a team proves that the procedural violation severely damages or inherently risks severe damage to their ability to debate in this round. So, if you want to go for this, explain what specific arguments and strategies that your opponent unfair

ly prevented you from running. Be sure to state why it is unfair and what serious consequences it has for your debating.

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

From:           Marius Mihai Hentea <mmh34@columbia.edu>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: DEBATERS-- Judging Philosphies Please!

Marius Hentea
Bronx Science Asst. Debate Coach
Columbia University Debater  (CC '00)

Judging philosophy...always get asked this question, and I am never sure
how to answer it.  I don't have one per se.  I am essentially a "tabula
rosa" judge who usually defers to a policy paradigm unless given
compelling reasons not to.

Judge Intervention:  I HATE IT...I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE I
DON'T HAVE TO.  This means that the debaters are responsible for making
the round easier for me.  If I have to read evidence, that means it was
not explained well enough.  Once I start comparing evidence quality, the
debate has transferred to my court...I will then judge the quality of the
evidence, most of the times to the begrudging complaints of one team.
Make sure this doesn't happen...explain and compare your evidence to the
other side's.

CLARITY:  I want to be able to flow the evidence, not just the tagline.  
That means that words should be distinct, not slurred, preferably with
some emphasis added for those important words.  I will yell "clear" a few
times; after that, your speaks will get hosed.  

TAGS:  Make flowing easier for me (and all the other judges).  Tags should
be easy to flow; i am not looking for paragraphs.  moreover, make the
tags distinct (especially in the 1AC).

ETHICS:  Very important.  Unethical practices will be rewarded with a loss
and very low speaker points.  If the other side makes an ethical
violation, the debate has terminated.  The only thing to discuss is the
ethical violation (unless one side can clearly articulate why the
substantive debate is more important).  Making an unfounded ethical
violation is just as bad as committing an ethical violation, so beware.

NEGATIVE STRATEGY:  I prefer to see good case debates.  I vote on T and
kritik's, given proper explanation.  The one thing I want to see is the
negative collapsing down in the block and in the 2NR.  Part of the reason
negative's don't win lots of ballots is because they go for too much,
leading to poor argument development and easy 2AR's.  COLLAPSE DOWN.

Besides the above, there is really not much else to say.  Typical
collegiate judge: I am looking for a good story along with a robust
line-by-line.  Arguments are evaluated based on their cogency and
coherence, not on the fact that some are evidenced while others are not.
Everything else is quite normal.

One last thing...Debate is a competitive activity.  This often leads
debaters to be arrogant and nasty to each other in rounds.  I hate this
kind of behavior.  Mean debaters will get jacked on speaker points.  It
reflects poorly on them and on the activity.  Be nice...it's only a round.
     

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

From:           "michael layne" <zenerbation@hotmail.com>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        paradigm for CFL
Date:           Thu, 21 May 1998 22:27:37 PDT

How's it going, my name is Christian Hess, andI will be judging policy 
at the Grand National Tournament in Detroit.  Here's the deal.  I am 
CEDA debator for Marshall University.  I am a former West Virginia HS 
State Champion so nothing will be too difficult for me to grasp.

Specific issues you may be wondering about:

I'm pretty much tabula rasa and I like gaming.

"T"   I'll vote on it if you win it, I enjoy creative violations, and 
I'm tight on theory.

Speed is cool, but I hate it with people who can't do it right.

Kritiks are cool when done right.  I will vote on rethought.

Counter Plans  great love em.

Topical CP's great love em even more.

Counterplan Kickout is debatable as well.

Overall  You can talk about anything you want, I mean anything, it 
doesn't matter to me I'll consider everything.  Debate should be fun so 
make it that way and tell me sweet 2 stories.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

Date:           Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:01:50 -0400
From:           Duane_J_Hyland@bestsoftware.com
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Please Add this to you Judging Philosophy Archive,

 Speed: I don't mind it, but be clear. If you aren't clear, as I am
partially deaf in one ear, I tend to be annoying and shout CLEAR at you, so
save me the trouble and just be clear. I should also say that I'm not
impressed by speed, and you don't get "extra" points just for talking fast
in front of me.

  Paradigm: I'm completely Tabula Rasa in this area. I suspect that if my
ballots over the past 8 years were analyzed you would find that I have
voted Policy Paradigm just as many times as I have voted on the Stock
Issues paradigm. I vote using the criteria that's established for me by the
debaters. If the debaters fail to establish a criteria, I more often than
not vote on the Policy implications of the matter in the round.

  Topicality: I hate hearing T debates, they are boring, so I would prefer
not to hear T. However, if T. is raised, the affirmative better be ready to
debate it, as I will vote on it. However, the negative should not get to
comfortable as I do accept well structured, and though out, reverse voter
arguments.

   Counterplans: I like counterplans, I prefer them to be competitive and
substantive in nature.

   Structure: I prefer debaters to at least signpost as to where they are
on the flow, this helps me keep track of your arguments. If you don't tell
me where to put your arguments, I'll put them where I think they should go,
and this isn't always where you'd like me to put them.

    Miscellaneous: There is one thing that I absolutely can't stand to see
when judging: I HATE RUDENESS of any kind. I don't care if your school is
Debate HS Central with multiple national titles, and a seemingly permanent
bid to the TOC, or if your school is the smallest debate squad in the
nation, with the budget to match. There is never any cause to be rude, to
swear, to be disrespectful to any team that you debate. I hate this, and it
is the surest way to have your speaks crushed when in front of me. Life is
to short, and too chaotic to be rude in a round. Arrogance, Smugness,
Rudeness, Condescending attitudes don't sit well with me, so when you
debate in front of me check your egos at the door. You can always front for
your friends after the tournament, fronting for me gets you nowhere!!:(

 Kriticks/Critiques or however you spell it: I'm not a fan of these
arguments, my wife is an L/D coach so I hear enough philosophy in a normal
day to rethink how I eat my dinner. If you run these, I'll probally suggest
that you need to go debate in L/D. However, I respect your right to run
them, I'll listen to them, but I can't say I've ever voted on one. In my
experience, debaters don't do a good job explaining the philosophy that
underpins the critique. If you chose to run one in front of me, do so at
your risk, but take a few minutes to explain why this is important, why I
should rethink things, why the Affirmative is absusive, racist, etc... But
overall, run DA's and Counterplans, even run T before you run a Critique.
Thanks, Duane

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

Phil Kerpen Judge Philosophy

OK, my judging philosophy is fairly simple.

I employ least intervention style of judging.  There are three situations
which are exceptions to this general perspective in which I intentionally
intervene:

1.  I intervene against arguments that I consider unfair to other teams at
the tournament, such as a double win or a 30 points argument.  I do this
because, although both teams in my debate are likely to agree to it, other
teams at the tournament would quite legitimately object, but cannot
represent themselves.  I have not yet ever had to intervene for this
reason, but I am willing to.

2.  I intervene against new arguments in the second affirmative rebuttal.
The negative has no chance in the debate to reply to these arguments, and
thus I feel a responsibility to protect the negative by intervening to
disregard such arguments.  Note that I will not intervene to reject new
arguments from any other speech, so if you want me to toss out new 1AR
arguments, for example, you need to win arguments that I should.

3.  I intervene against arguments that call on me to engage in political
activism in the real world.  As a political and moral agent I feel
that any activism I engage in should be because I believe in it; I will
not advance a cause that I disagree with in the real world just
because of the arguments in a debate.  That said, I have no problem voting
for critical arguments that are impacted in such a way that I can evaluate
them as a critic of argument.

Other than these three situations, I will attempt to resolve the debate to
the best of my ability based on the arguments made by the debaters.  I
will vote on any argument which implies that I should vote on it, if it is
won.  I will vote on an arbitrarily asserted voting issue if it is
conceded, so be careful to answer everything labeled as such.

I consider speech times to be a rule of debate, and thus I am inflexible
about them.  This means that I will not listen to evidence that you read
after your speech has ended.  I write on my flow the last word that was
read before time expired, and I will only consider the portion of the card
that was during the speech.

My subinterventionist biases are:

1. I am very politically conservative.  I think Socialism Good is about
the worst arg ever.

2. I think all counterplans should always be conditional.  I find
conditionality bad arguments vaguely offensive.

3. I don't like topicality.

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

From:           "Blennerhassett Debate" <blenndebate@hotmail.com>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Judging Paradigm (Michael Layne) 
Date:           Sat, 09 May 1998 18:39:49 PDT

Hey all!!!  My name is Michael Layne, and I will be judging policy at 
Grand nats in Detroit.  Responding to the request on cx-l, let me share 
with you my view of the activity...

1. I will adapt to you.  Do what you do best.  I mean it.

2. I try to be as tabula rosa as posibble (but I am human).  Again, I 
should adapt to you, especially at a tourney as eclectic as this one.  

3. Gaming is fine.

4. I will vote on T.  However, I do like to presuppose a reasonability 
standard.  I like to see some abuse, but I will vote on whatever interp 
is won.  Show me why reasonability sucks!

5. Speed is fine.  In fact, I like the critical thinking skills that 
speed develops, but I do want to HEAR the card quickly.  I don't like, 
"1. the aff intrenches the anthropogenic mindset.  Zimmmerman '95 
???????????????????????????????????????????."  If you are not clear, I 
will let you know.  "Clear!!!"

6. Kritiking...

a. I like it.  My team is going 8 min Heidegger.  What does that tell 
you?

b. I will vote on discourse... give me a good reason.  

c. I will allow the aff to argue that any specific kritik (I dislike the 
noun) should assume relevant burdens (uniqueness, competitiveness, 
whatever).  And I will allow the neg to say, "No way!  Kritiking is 
different!"

d. The metadebate is wide open here.  Whatever you say, I am going to 
listen... even if you want to "fiat" the paradigm.

7. Counterplans

a. cool... whatever

b. As far as fiat goes...  I view fiat as "propositional."  Thus, neg 
can "fait" anything that is germane to the question as the aff manifests 
it.  If it meets the competition test, the neg can fiat it.  Keep in 
mind, however, that I will listen to the aff answer too.

c. As far as the dispositional/conditional thing goes...  I will let the 
debate guide me.  Go for it... if you think you can out debate the other 
side on the theory.

8. Everything is debatable! I love the metadebate.

9. Have fun!

Where is all of this going to be avalible?  I want the list for my teams 
too.  I took the trouble to enter the info for you...  so, if you know, 
mail me at blenndebate@hotmail.com	  Thanks!		

Look forward to seeing you in Detroit,

Michael Layne   

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

No Predisposition: I'm not smart enough to have one.

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>
Subject:        hs policy debate judging philosophy!

michelin massey.
university of colorado-boulder debate.
hs policy/team/cx debate judging philosophy:

there are several areas that i think are very important to cover in
reference to policy debate, whether it be college or hs.  the First issue
is the rate of delivery.  in my mind, to adequately address the issues and
nature of a broad policy oriented topic, you all should be speaking very
rapidly (or fast enough to cover the other team).  however, just know that
i _despise_ unclear, garbled speed.  don't do it!  if i have yelled
"clear!" more than once in your speech, you should know that i am no
longer flowing.  that's bad.  do know, though, that i take no pity on
teams who get spread out of debates.

the Second issue is my exact philosophy.  well, i am a "modern" policy
maker.  i am pretty much NOT tabula-rasa.  NO, i won't interevne, but
there are specific ways i evaluate rounds.  in reference to this, please
be very clear as to where you are on the flow.  be consistent with how you
make arguments ("next," "additionally," "furthermore," etc. are all fine).
just make sure i know which arguments you are attacking and which ones you
are going for (in the end).  the first thing i evaluate are any Kritiks
(critiques) run by the negative or the affirmative.  i think that if there
is some sort of functional or linguistic (or other) type of assumption
that is bad, that should be considered before all of the other issues
because the framework for weighing the impacts is bad.  if there are no
kritiks (critiques), i move on to any d-rules or t violations.

if you can even argue that your d-rule or t violation should be weighed
before the (counter) kritik (critique), the certainly do so.  if that is
how you want me to evaluate the debate, i will.  if you want me to become
a rawlsian decision maker and only vote on which side produces the most
justice behind the veil of ignorance, i will most certainly do that as
well.

after the d-rule, i will evaluate any topicality violations that the
negative has run.  however, there are several caveats to my t philosophy:
1) i believe that literature checks some abuse.  sure - you all probably
have evidence on last year's juvenile crime topic, but that doesn't mean
(in my mind) that the affirmative is topical in reference to increasing
renewable energy use in the united states.  2) i am still probably one of
the few judges you will ever get who will admit to actually voting for
reverse voting issue(s) (rvi).  negative, if the affirmative is topical,
DON'T RUN T!!!  if you claimed to be abused and yet you have been able to
spew out 9 disads (with good links) and 45 case turns, i have no reason to
believe the arguments you are making in reference to being abused.  

after all of this t stuff, i evaluate the impacts.  really, you all should
do this for me (i.e. weigh impacts, i.e. give solid overviews in the 2NR
and 2AR).  i want to know _why_ your case turn(s), disad(s), or case
outweighs the other team's case turn(s), disad(s), or case!  again, at the
top of the 2NR and 2AR, you should tell me a good overview and tell me in
a holistic-sort-of way why you are winning the debate.  if you have
questions, i have got answers!

one final note: if you have a propensity to run any positions or make
arguments that are racist, sexist, classist, anti-semetic, you will have a
hard time winning any round i judge you in (an automatic loss is given if
you make these kinds of remarks/arguments); or, getting speaker points
above _2_.  but, if your goals are not to do well, win ANY semblance of an
award, or be perceived as a rational human being, go right ahead!  yell as
many slurs as you can.  

most of all, have fun, debate well, and do your best!  that is all i
really can ask of any of you.

here's an additional item to add to my judging philosophy:

i will pull the trigger on T.  but, make sure that you (in the 1NC shell)
tell me why T is a voter, not just because you blip that it is a voting
issue.  also, you should (in the block and in the rebuttals) extend/pull
why T is a voting issue.  i won't do it for you.  i won't vote for T if
the voting issue is not pulled.

other than that, i think everything else is pretty much the same.  i
really do believe, though, that T is a very important issue.  please,
however, don't run topicality unless you believe you have a propensity to
win on that argument.

New addition:

as for counter-plans, i know counter-plan theory.  you should too.  i
don't have any particular disposition about counter-plans.  all of that
should be resolved by the debaters.  as such, the debaters (on both
sides) should be mindful that it's important to weigh the
impacts/solvency/net benefits/theoretical justification to the
counter-plan (against the plan) in their speeches.

michelin massey.
university of colorado-boulder.

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

From:           Ari Meltzer <ameltzer@usc.edu>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Judging Philosophies

ARI MELTZER'S JUDGE PHILOSOPHY

I debated for 4 years at Glenbrook North and now debate for University of
Southern California.

Paradigm:  Tabula rasa.  I am most familiar with a policy paradigm and,
thus, default to such when no other paradigm is constructed for me, but I am
open to any form of debate.  If you are winning an Alternate Justification
affirmative and prepared to defend the hypotesting paradigm, I will
certainly listen to it (and I have won rounds doing it before, so don't
laugh).

Kritiks:  I have debated many and judged many, but rarely run them myself.
I have and will vote on kritiks, but be prepared to defend why it's a voting
issue and what the implications are.  I like comparisons on both sides about
the specific case arguments against the kritik.  Why do the generic
assertions the kritik authors are making indict the specific arguments being
made by the affirmative authors?  As for speed kritiks/language
kritiks/etc., be prepared to argue why this outweighs the actions of the
plan.  Fiat should be a central issue of the debate, unless counter-kritiks
are the strategy.

CPs:  I am a fan of strategic CPs.  Be prepared to defend the theory, but I
have few predispositions.  Make distinctions for me on the theory (i.e. why
the permutation is a TF as opposed to severence, or why the CP is plan
inclusive).

I can understand speed when it is clear, but my attention span is low, so if
you are unclear, I tend not to concentrate enough to deliniate words.  Cards
should be clear as well.  Cross-reading will lead to bad points and my
disregarding the evidence (since there isn't a coherent thought expressed
during your speech).  I WILL flow words in the card as well as tags, so you
better not lie about what you read after the round.

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

Date:           Mon, 11 May 1998 10:41:55 -0500
From:           Cory Puuri <CPuuri@jjkeller.com>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        Policy Puuri, Cory

1. Philosophical filter?  

Flow Judge - I judge the round on the merits of the flow. I am Tabula Rasa
to the extent that I vote for or against a position based on the in-round
args. However, I've been invloved in debate for closed to nine years now
and cannot claim to be blank slate on my tenedncies to vote for or against
certain positions. 

2. How many years have you judged, and how much do you usually judge/year? 

6 years judging.  Varies from 3 to 12 tornaments per year. 4-5 tournaments
this year. 

3. Do you vote on topicality?  Often? 

Yes, although I wouldn't say often. I have't seen a lot of non-topical
cases. and I haven't seen a lot of good t debates. But I am well versed on
t ... 

4. Does speed bother you?  Do you find that you can flow a typical "fast"
debate round?  Would you prefer that debaters debated slower than a
typical "fast" debate round? If a debater is going too fast or is unclear,
do you call out "clearer" or give some signal that you're not getting the
arguments? 

No. Yes. No. Yes.  Two things: be clear and put some an analysis behind an
argument. I.E. if you say "common person" on T then explain what you mean
by that and the implication. 

5. Critiques: 
    A.  What do you think of critiques?  Do you believe that an argument
can have "extra discursive" impact in a round, if such impact is claimed
for an argument? 

Critiques are great if explained and argued well.  Yes. 

    B.  If one team calls another team racist or xenophibic, or whatever,
and says that if this charge is proved true that it should constitute a
voting issue, would you as a judge agree, despite the "policy" arguments
in the round? (e.g. If I call Arafat a terrorist, and lose an argument
that says that such arguments stem from an anti-Arab bias, but I win an
advantage that claims, were the policy I'm advocating actually done, a
nuclear war would be averted, and these are the only two arguments in the
round, do I win or lose the debate?) 

Depends on the reason why it is a voter and neg arguments on the voter. If
the critique is truly a "winner" and the voter is conceded, I would most
likely evaluate the critique prior to the advantage. 

    C.  Do you think a critique which smells like a disadvantage should
have the burdens of a disadvantage, or if a critique smells like a
counterplan it should compete? Or do you think that once a critique is
claimed as being "different" there are no set "rules" for it? 

Sounds pretty shady if you ask me. I think it's up to the debaters to
guide my voting process.  That being said, I think there are no
predisposed rules other than time limits. 

5. Counter-plans
   A.  Is there any limit on negative fiat? 

Maybe, depends on the aff arguments. I do have a tendency to side with the
aff if neg fiats utopia or alternate actors without ev to support that
actor. 

   B.  Do you have any particular problems with counterplans in general? 

No. 

   C.  Are conditional counterplans acceptable? 

Prior to the round, anything is acceptable. 

   D.  Are dispositional counterplans acceptable?  (If a counterplan is
proven to be uncompetitive, does it just "go away", or might the
affirmative be able to "capture" an advantage via a permutation?) 

Depends on the in-round arguments. I've gone both ways based on in-round
args. 

6. Is there anything else you think debaters need to know about you or
your approach to the activity in order to debate effectively for you? 

I prefer solvency attacks to follow the aff case structure (frontlines are
a bit lazy).  I dislike the practice of 2nr going for a critique and a
disad.  I don't like it when 2nr goes for everything and doesn't tell a
story.  I prefer analysis on T standards.  I hate it when people read my
judging philosophy and then run stock issues.  I don't expect people to
adapt to me when there are two or more other critics in the round with
different philosophies from mine.  I do disclose after rounds but I do not
debate my RFDs with debaters (only encountered twice, both times in novi
rounds) 

Thanks for reading,
Cory
Appleton West Debate

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

From:           Big Jim <JPacker@concentric.net>
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        your damn judging philosophies

Here phil, at your request, my judging philosophy:
I wont vote on "arguments" that dont make sense. Like Doyle's example;
"rubber chicken, voter." That makes no sense. Other than that, I have no
predispositions. If you want to make sure, feel free to ask me before
the round, "will you vote on ______?".  I don't like to do work when I
judge, I like for the decision to be made clear as to where the debaters
want me to decide. I don't like to read evidence, so if you want me to
read some evidence, you should give me the cite, location, and reason
why I should be reading the ev. I prefer to see debaters that debate
smarter not harder. I dont like to see negatives with a strategy of
spreading out the aff. This doesn't mean I wont vote  against a team
that got spread out, I just don't like to see speed as a teams sole
strategy. I really don't like to see mean debaters, be nice. I dont
follow the trend towards a high point scale, my scale tends to be a few
points lower than the average.  I figure in how well you debated, not
just how well you spoke.
About time limits - to me, they are a rule. When the speech time is
over, the speech is over. Don't ask to continue, it just annoys me, and
wastes your breath, Im not listening.

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 10:07:43 -0500
To:             pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject:        CX Judging Philosophy

I have tried to be as thorough as possible in what follows.  I don't
doubt that some will find it insufficiently detailed.  When in doubt,
ask....

*TOPICALITY*

I assign presumption to the Affirmative on this issue.  Negatives
who desire to win my ballot here must argue persuasively that their
competitive opportunities are seriously damaged by Affirmative's
interpretation.  Inasmuch as my decision is not binding upon others,
I do not find arguments about "out-of-round implications" compelling.
Nit-picky, "time-suck" topicality challenges damage the credibility
of Negatives who run them.

*THEORY GOO*

Part of what makes CX fun is the meta-debate about theoretical
issues.  Debaters should be aware that I do not consider any such
issues to be finally settled.  If you have a good argument, make it.

*EVIDENCE*

Evidence in support of factual claims is generally regarded as
dispositive absent any countervailing evidence.  Evidence in support
of predictive claims is not.  Carded arguments regarding predictive
claims will not automatically prevail in the face of rigorous-but-
uncarded analysis.  Arguments regarding source credibility and the
ultimate cogency of predictive claims are stronger if carded, but
I do not worship cards at the expense of sound analysis.  I do not
read evidence after rounds; if you want cards to weigh in my
decision, make sure they are presented clearly.  Overclaiming evidence
damages the credibility of debaters who engage in the practice.

*DELIVERY*

I find clarity effective regardless of the speaker's WPM rate.
I find muddled arguments ineffective regardless of the speaker's
WPM rate.  If you intend to speak in catch-phrases and shorthand,
you will likely be disappointed:  I do not intend to "fill in the 
blanks" for *either* side in the round.

*THE CASE DEBATE*

I do not believe that case issues are "dead" in policy debate.
Negatives making cogent arguments on significance and inherency
will find a sympathetic ear.  However, I do not require cataclysmic
harms in order to find resolutional action warranted.  "Small, true"
cases will also be given a fair hearing.

*THE PLAN DEBATE*

I believe that Negatives too often let Affirmative get away with
murder on solvency/workability issues.  I do not require cataclysmic
impacts to find disadvantage arguments persuasive.  Affirmatives
should rigorously challenge the relevance and cogency of generic
disadvantages.  Counterplans are a legitimate Negative strategy.

*KRITIKS*

I really wish you wouldn't, but if you must....be prepared to defend
your position analytically.  Claims that such issues "must outweigh
everything else in the round" (even if carded) will be defeated by
reasonable analytical counter-claims to the contrary.  In other words,
kritik advocacy has a steep hill to climb in front of me....

*DECORUM*

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

From:           Doyle Srader <srader@imap3.asu.edu>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: If I judge you

Nice service! I have ten minutes to kill, so I'll contribute.

STANCE: Argument critic. My framework for evaluation is which team has 
the best argument package. Claims which are nonsensical or are 
anti-persuasive are not arguments. "Rubber chicken, voting issue!" is 
nonsensical. "Spousal abuse is OK, that's what women are for!" is 
anti-persuasive.

TOPICALITY: Two questions: which interpretation of the topic would 
produce better debating if applied universally? Does the affirmative fall 
under that interpretation? A corollary: If there is no articulable impact 
to allowing the allegedy "inferior" interpretation of the topic, then it 
isn't really inferior. And it's not some kind of odious, unwelcome whine: 
I'll vote on it as soon as look at you. Make sure you have your story 
straight.

COUNTERPLANS: Explain why your counterplan is a reason I should vote 
against the plan. If you think a permutation isn't legitimate, tell me 
why -- sound bites won't even be written down. My sympathies are with 
people who say conditionality/dispositionality is bad, and the same with 
exclusion counterplans, but I vote for both regularly. Almost all other 
issues -- topical or not, plan-inclusive, international fiat, etc. -- I 
have no enduring preference.

KRITIKS: If you say "Claim A, because reasons B, C, and D," and follow it 
with "Claim A means we should win the debate because of reasons E, F, and 
G," then I take that under consideration as an argument. I don't care 
whether you backstop all of that with evidence from Heidegger, Simon & 
Ostrom, or Iggy Pop. Arguments is arguments is arguments.

STYLE: *PLAY NICELY*. I have the world's shortest fuse when it comes to 
in-round rudeness or hostility. Your speaker points will drop to single 
digits before you know what hit you. Consider: the image you project when 
you behave in an ugly fashion is that you feel threatened, insecure, like 
you're losing the debate. If, on the other hand, you're comfortable, 
cool, and polite, you seem to be in control, and you project to me the 
impression that you're winning. *SPEAK CLEARLY*. Expect a couple of 
"clearers," followed by my refusal to assess any claim you make which I 
don't understand, even if the other team clears things up in a later 
speech. Finally, please, please, *DUMP THE CLICHES*. I don't want to hear 
why things are "abusive" -- I want to hear reasons about why they're bad 
for debate. Think of new ways to make old arguments and we'll get along 
great.

EVIDENCE-READING: This one's a bit special. If you want me to call for a 
card after the debate, first give me all the information I'll need to 
locate where it was read: name, year, speech, location in the speech 
("Srader '97, the third card on contention two in the 1AC ... "). Second, 
tell me what I'll discover when I read it (" ... explains the difference 
between fast evaporative reclamation, which is what we do, and slow 
reverse osmosis, which is what their cards talk about.") I'll read every 
card you do this to, and none for which you don't. You have been warned.

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

From:           MONICA STUBY <STUBYMON@ESUVM.EMPORIA.EDU>
To:             Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject:        Re: DEBATERS-- Judging Philosphies Please!

My judging philosophy is this:
  1)  Anything can be a voter if a debator gives reason for it to be a voter.
  2)  Stock issues still matter, although I'm usually a policy maker.
  3)  Tell a clear story in the second rebuttals....way the issues.
  4)  Don't be mean or stupid in cross-ex or in the entire round.

  Thanks for caring; wish we had something like this when I was in high school!
  Monica Stuby
  Emporia State University

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

Date:           Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:14:30 -0800 (PST)
From:           Joseph Walker <halegladjo@webtv.net>
To:             submit@hsdebate.com
Subject:        policy: aaron walker judge philosophy

As far as experience, I debated 4 years in high school, went to the TOC,
various Round robins, NFL's, etc...  I debated (on and off) for three
years in college at ASU, and i have coached HS for 2 and half years now
(at different levels).  As far as my judgeing philsphy, most that know
me would accuse me of being a kritik hack, however, that comes with a
caveat: the K had better interact with the aff, i dont want to hear a
diatribe on Foucalut or Derrida w/o relevance.

As far as T, i am slightly more willing than most to pull the trigger
(probably b/c i believe that its about competing interps).  anything
else is up to y'all.  be nice to each other, or if not, be funny about
it!!!

Aaron Walker
PCDS debate