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.
|
