Last changed on
Sat November 5, 2022 at 5:44 AM EDT
I competed in policy debate (CX), Lincoln Douglas, Student Congress, and Extemporaneous speaking in High School at a high level in the '80's. I debated for the University of Oklahoma while pursuing an engineering degree and had a good deal of success at the national level. That would probably label me a "Traditional" judge. In some ways that is true. I DO NOT like "Open CX" and will not allow it if I am the only judge on the panel. I'm completely okay with new arguments in the 2NC and new evidence in rebuttals (when did that change?). Kritik's hadn't been invented yet when I debated.
However, I've seen (and done) about everything you can do in a debate round to try and pull out a win, so I can be open minded. My default framework for policy debate is a “policy maker” paradigm, so will always look to weigh the significance of affirmative harms solved against the risk of negative disadvantages. You will be well served to remember this is how I was trained to think.
I will vote on Topicality, but don't like to unless the affirmative is clearly trying to skirt the topic.
I dislike “theory” debates, but understand they have their place and in some cases are absolutely necessary. I really wish all debaters would take a class on "Fiat" as it is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in policy debate.
I'm learning how Kritik's work and think in some cases they make for an interesting debate. However, most teams don't really understand Kritiks (on either side) which makes for bad debate. If you want to win the Kritik, your best chance is to be the one most knowledgeable on the supporting literature and be able to explain it to me in "layman's" terms.
I love case side arguments, good analysis, clash, well-constructed links on Disadvantages, and effective cross-x lines of attack. I despise listening to debaters read briefs they did not write or do not understand.
I don't mind speed as long as it's not a crutch for bad argumentation. Keep in mind I only judge debate periodically, so you will want to look for verbal cues that I am understanding you. Clarity is key. I've heard college debaters go 400 wpm I could understand perfectly, and Jr High debaters go 200 wpm I had no idea what they were saying. Signposting (which appears to be a lost art) is extremely helpful and will help you tremendously in making sure I understand your arguments. I don't want to be included on speech doc's. If an argument is not understood by me in the round it does not exist.
My wish is for everyone to enjoy debate for what it is - a beautiful game that allows each participant to express their creativity through words. Good luck!