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.
| 