Southwest Missouri State University (1st Year Judging / 8 Rounds now, more by CEDA Nats)
Interesting Heg debates, clear explanations, pleasant debaters, exploring an issue in depth. I also like political process debates but with these kinds of arguments the truth is always more persuasive then the half cocked scenarios debaters sometimes develop. With this being said I also appreciate creativity in argumentation so if you can find a balance between being tricky and the truth it will go along way to securing my ballot in your favor.
Being confused about what you are saying, fast blippy theory with no pen time, unpleasant people, exploring an issue superficially. This means debates should be focused around real areas of academic interest and not cheap shots.
I like to do funky things. Should I strike or prefer you?:
I’m neither the greatest advocate nor harshest critic of creative debate. I do somewhat prefer conventional debate, which includes at least critiques with a clear link to the case. I will try hard to judge fairly based on any framework that the teams agree upon, but it is important for “alternative” frameworks to be clearly understood and well defended. I view debate as an academic endeavor so if your project adds to our understanding of the resolution then you’re probably ok.
Clear precise theory arguments are preferred. Do not waste time with unwarranted blips. Superfluous theory is frowned upon. This means that spec arguments should serve a purpose other then a simple“theoretical” argument i.e. locking the other team into a da or k. Topicality is ok but no more then two or I probably will cry. Affirmative cases should be topical. Most important for me is that theory be easily flowable and true. Please answer all hidden voters\violations I hate voting on theory but will if dropped or if a team can win in round abuse. Potential abuse arguments must demonstrate a substantial threat to a teams argumentative position. Argue potential abuse at your own risk.
Love them! Love them even more if I think they are true.
They are neat. Conditional CP are probably abusive. Dispostional CP are probably not abusive. Unconditional CP are never a problem. The negative has fiat. Who the negative can fiat is debatable. Competition is a key standard in my evaluation of my policy options. Permutations are an affirmatives friend. Despite how friendly they may be they are almost always a simple test of competition. Absent a devolution in to a theory debate I enjoy a good cp through down.
I often find these debates troublesome. A good K should have a specific link to the case and a clear alternative. Affirmatives do not let the negative over extend the potential of the alternative. I watch to many debates where the neg is allowed to claim absurd amounts of solvency from their alternative. Alternatives will be evaluated much like CPs. Philosophy is my area of academic study. I often find K debater misrepresenting philosophers or misuse ideas from the field. Arguments that point out these possible inconsistencies are persuasive. Most K debates come down to a question of framework. Framework is not simply how I evaluate the round but how we should view \ interact with the objects in the world. In other words framework arguments are ontological arguments. Ontology is a question of what there is in the world. So to win a framework argument you should prove your philosophy accurately represents the world.
Any specific questions ask!
I’m fairly open-minded, but no one is truly tabular Rasa.