|
I am essentially a Tabula R. judge but I evaluate the round with Stock Issues and Presumption in play. First and foremost I see debate as an event where communication and persuasion are key. The more you try to impress me with speed (most guys if you have to ask you are probably not good spreading DONT DO IT just be efficient and confident and watch the girls that are really good and spend alot of time practicing in the mirror at home to get great at it) or pretentious philosphy the more likely you are to make me an unhappy judge. SIGNPOST and keep it professional but humorous and Im your friend if you don't do these things ... I make no promises. I like CX Debate (analytics are good bc it allows for me to connect with you as individuals who happen to debate ) and Lincoln Douglas (keep cards and spewing out go traditional -good quotes value criterion debate) to be clearly distinct events.
Policy Rounds
Negs dont make me flow 15 different positions and then you dont know how to make them useful in strategy .... and take the time to demolish the 1AC if nothing else you ll capture more stock issues for the win.
Topicality - important but dont abuse it or waste time if you are going to kick it anyway.
Kritiks- must be relevant not too generic and you must tell me the story and know what you are talking about (or at least make me believe you do)
Counterplans - must have a unique Net Benefit and not overly generic
Perms- Awesome just dont leave me confused on the many alternate scenarios
Framework - I want you to tell me what I should be using to weigh the round and why but keep it from being redundant
I start every round with the idea that the Aff will prove to me that their plan is good and I should give them the benefit of the doubt unless the Neg proves like in the court of law that the Aff is 'guilty' and violates their burden or the resolution in some way. (THIS APPLIES TO LD AND CX)
LD Rounds
I like an interesting opening quote not just I affirm or negate and the AFF should always give me definitions bc I set up my resolutional framework around the defintions they present. If those aforementioned def's are abusive NEGs please call them on it and provide counter defs with compelling reasons to prefer your interpretation of the resolution
Value - traditionally must uphold and clearly understand what you are advocating
Criterion- must link and validate the value / will buy new age crazy standards rhetoric only if Neg/opponent doesnt call you on it
CX time - I like you to face judge standing and maintain professionalism although a little passion or humor is ok... relax have fun but stay courteous dont take anything personal
Give me well supported contentions in your own words rather than just a bunch of cards Hint read the cards and then create a case. I like to hear what you have found out research wise and I like to see how quick you can react to your opponent in a round ... keeps it interesting.
Remember you always have something good to say and to tell me a good story!!!
|
Updated Philosophies