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.
|
