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.
|
