Last changed on
Wed March 11, 2020 at 3:34 AM MDT
Background
I have a daughter who competes in speech and debate, so I have been involved as a parent with this activity for three years. I have experience judging in CX, LD, and PF, as well as various speech types. I admire the hard work and dedication conveyed by the students in this activity and want to help nurture your success as a debater, so please take each part of my paradigm into consideration- my feedback will be reflected on how you adjust as a debater to my paradigm.
Paradigm
I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge, meaning each debate is a clean slate. I will go into specifics for how I evaluate argumentation in each debate type, but I view the round without preconceived biases or framework for how the debate advances. I expect clean debates; arguments offered are clashed, burdens are met, etc. I prefer quantitative logic heavily over qualitative— philosophy is fine if it is warranted with factual evidence. In conclusion, I will adjust to the course the debate takes as long as it is warranted, clean, and evokes an academic “conversation”.
Preferences
In regards to all debate types, my preference on the following are universally applicable:
Jargon: Please do not use heavy jargon- I’m still relatively new. If you need to use jargon, briefly explain it.
Speed: I do not mind speed as long as I can understand you.
Evidence: Sources are provided per request by a competitor or your judge. I also appreciate signposting.
Cross Examination: Be respectful.
Specific Expectations/Prefs
· Kritiks: I am generally okay with K’s/K-Affs with some unfamiliarity (I do have a PhD in Philosophy, so I will likely understand most general philosophies). so you need to do heavy analysis and thoroughly explain each part of the K with heavy emphasis on the Alt. In return, I prefer negative arguments to either thoroughly deconstruct the K or provide an accessible perm.
· Counterplans: I am relatively unfamiliar with CP’s, but I will consider this argument provided that the CP is thoroughly explained and analyzed.
· Disadvantages: Disadvantages are pivotal to a neg case be it that they provide quantitative evidence and are not entirely theoretical.
· Topicality: Again, I am unfamiliar with the function of this argument, though if it is explained and extended through the entire debate I should not have a problem comprehending it.
· Framework: I heavily weigh FW as a Tabs judge, so please tell me how to evaluate the round. If there is not a FW debate, then I will presumably flow the initial FW through the round.
· Solvency: Considering this is State debate, I expect the affirmative to have a definitive solvency, though if it is implied emphasize statements adhering to solvency so I know to incorporate that into my flow.
· Time: I will hold the official time, though if competitors would like to self-time, that is fine. I do not consider an evidence exchange as prep time, but if flashing takes an excessive amount of time I will tack it on to your prep time.
Overall, I weigh respect over any argument. If I pick up on any disrespect in or out of the round, it will go into my consideration of the round and may go to tabs if I see it fit for further evaluation. Please have fun- for you seniors, this is your last go-around with debate, so make it your best!