Judge Philosophies

Seth Blackmon

Policy Judge

C.K. McClatchy HS Debate

Sacramento, CA

1. Decorum.  All debaters must treat each other with professionalism and respect.  I will mark down speaker points for inappropriate behavior.  Simple as that!


2. Speed.  Fine if you can do it well, but if it's not clear, then you take the risk that I misflow the arguments.  Signposting and telling me where the arguments go is critical, especially in late rebuttals.  I prefer a functional blend of speed and persuasion.  At the end of the day, as a judge, I want to feel like you earned the decision and that I wasn’t left sifting through the ashes to find the lesser of two evils.  Communicate with me, not at me!


3. Counterplans.  I am open to any test of competition, but it has to be persuasive and properly supported.  Obviously, the more potentially abusive the argument is, the more that theory matters…just keep these things in mind.


4. Kritiks.  Kritiks must be clear, well developed and the negative should be willing to write down the text of their critique alternative or be very specific about what it is and not waver from that description.  I should note that I tend to be pretty skeptical of K’s on a policy basis.  I frequently vote on well articulated positions; however, if my ballot is a tool, or if I am asked to make a real world difference, then I will vote my conscience.  Thus, if you want to act as though the Alt can affect real world implications, you risk me voting my beliefs…which are utterly pragmatic.


5. A few other random facts:
   
   
   1. The affirmative should specify which branches of the Federal Government enact the mandates of the plan (this really is a no brainer…there should be no functional place for an ASPEC argument at this level of debate…clean up the plan and be done with it so that we can debate some real policy issues.)
   
   
   2. I prefer debates that focus around a few central arguments. Six or seven off-case arguments is extreme.
   
   
   3. I happily vote on good T arguments…just don’t waste my time trying to fill time.  If you don’t honestly believe you can win it…spend your time on something more productive.
   
   
   4. Please don’t make the argument that “fiat is illusory” or similar arguments as to why voting affirmative doesn’t really do anything in terms of “real world change.” Voting affirmative simply endorses a world where the government SHOULD take action. If the affirmative can win that there are benefits to taking that action they stand a good chance of winning.
   
   
   5. Debaters should verbalize the qualifications of the authors they are citing to support their arguments. Smart, sophisticated arguments about the quality of competing pieces of evidence make me happy.  I consider qualification/source quality arguments decisive and will not be afraid to discard from consideration a piece of evidence that is proven unqualified or unreliable.
   
   
   6. Lastly, have fun.  This is a great experience for all involved and you will remember some of your better rounds for decades.