Last changed on
Thu February 11, 2016 at 3:30 AM HST
mckennamains@gmail.com
Competed 3 years of Public Forum Debate in High School
1 year + continuing Policy Debate at University of Washington
Have judged high school debate for one year
Prep Time can end when you say you're done prepping, but if I think you're not being honest we will have a conversation.
I don't know if this is an annomoly, but in my short judging career I have had the misfortune of judging 3 rounds where the students made the round a joke. Please have respect for your peers, for me, and for the activity.
Have fun!
Policy:
K: I mostly enjoy running straightforward policy arguments when I debate, but have debated with critical partners. On the neg the Kritik has to solve the aff and have a clear impact story.
T: I think teams should be topical, but that just means the other team has to win topicality, not that you lose for being untopical. To win topicality you must have clear voters with specificically a topical version of the aff and ground loss to make it pursuasive.
DA: Good to go.
CP: In my limited judging experience, I have to call for the CP at the end of the round because the debates get very muddled.
- Multiple CPs are fine with me, but theory can also probably pursuade me why multiple CPs are bad.
- Multiple perms need to be differentiated and explained seperately with an adequate extension.
- Obviously CPs are useless without a net benefit
- CP needs to solve the impacts of the aff and have enough risk of the net benefit to outweigh
Pufo:
Judging public forum after competing in policy debate has changed a lot of ways I view public forum. I think a lot of judges say it's half presentation, half argumentation, but as a judge that has definitely shifted to 10% presentation, 90% argumentaiton for me. The flow will be what I am judging off of.
In terms of arguments, I think there is a perception that you can not "drop" a single thing in a debate. I think public forum can benefit from a narrowing of arguments in the rebuttals, and this can be achieved by not "dropping" arguments, but "going for" certain ones. A team would have a better chance of winning with one, good, in depth argument that outweighs the other team at the end of the debate.