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.
|
