kissmycls
11-27-06, 11:47 AM
This is from the 2006 NPTE.
Amber Davisson
William Jewell College
Parli Debates judged this year: 39005
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 0
Years Judging Debate: 4
Years Competed in Debate: 7
What School Competed at: William Jewell College
Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. I do my best to decide the round how you want me to. With that said - I have no clue how to weigh around through justice equality love or happiness. Until someone explains it to me I will assume that fewer people dying is good for justice equality love and happiness. I will gladly weigh the round in another way if you tell me how.'
Decision-making Approach: 'It depends on the type of round I m judging and the arguments the debaters are going for. However left to my own devices - --I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) '
Assessing Arguments: 'I try to handle dropped arguments the way the debaters tell me to. In the case of the PMR if the argument was a central issue or a round winning issue in the LOR then if PMR drops it it automatically becomes a round winning argument. Otherwise I assume that dropped arguments are true arguments and there strength weakeness depends on the part they play in the story of the round. I am looking for a mix of line by line and big picture. The first 4 speeches of the round should be very strong on the line by line. In the last two speeches i m looking for the debaters to tell me the story of the round - what happens if I vote for you vs. the world where I vote for your opponent. I love it when debaters tell a good even if story - "Even if they win their disad at best they get a regional war we will give them a regional war and say that it is still better to vote for us and avoid the risk of nuclear war." These kind of stories make my decision making easy. I m aware of the constraints on the PMR that you need to do the line by line and the big picture. So I give you leeway for the difficulty of this rebuttal. Still you should focus on telling a story. '
Presentational Aspects: '--Fast delivery Doesnt bother me but only do it if you are comfortable with it. I have seen slower teams beat speed teams - it is not necessary to speed up. Stick to the debate style that you are comfortable with and I will follow your lead. Go fast go slow stand on your head - however you think you will make the best arguments. --Use of gender-culture-orientation neutral or promotion language I believe debate is at its core the manipulation of language. Learning to play with language and use it to get what you want. Therefore the words we use matter. It is in your best interest in front of me to avoid slang with sexist undertones - this sucks we are getting screwed this argument is tight we are going to bitch slap them we are getting raped honey/sweetheart/dear sit down and I will answer your question in a second (and yes I have all these phrases used in round). I will not vote a team down for saying these things unless the other team tells me that I should and the offending team is unable to defend themselves. However I will dock a speaker point everytime these phrases or other offending phrases are used. --Vocal volume vocal variation eye contact poise hand gestures etc. I prefer teams that I can understand and who aren t annoying to listen to. '
Strong Viewpoints: 'Rape really is that bad and I will not in any way support female genital mutilation. Other than that I doubt you will offend me. '
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: '--Government Cases like it --Topicality Arguments like it --Disadvantages like it --Counterplans like it --Kritiks like it --Res of Facts--examples/whole resolution Annoys me but I will tolerate it. --Value-Criteria arguments i m never sure what to do with these. Like I said above I dont know how to weigh a round through justice. If you want me to use these then tell me how and I will do my best.'
Other Items to Note: 'I do my best to judge rounds the way I am asked to. I have voted for things I didn t like and I m pretty sure I will do it again sometime in the future. Unless you do something really annoying I doubt it will show in your speaks. So don t waste too much time adapting your style to me. Debate the way you are comfortable avoid using sexist language and we should get along just fine. Good luck!! '
Amber Davisson
William Jewell College
Parli Debates judged this year: 39005
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 0
Years Judging Debate: 4
Years Competed in Debate: 7
What School Competed at: William Jewell College
Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. I do my best to decide the round how you want me to. With that said - I have no clue how to weigh around through justice equality love or happiness. Until someone explains it to me I will assume that fewer people dying is good for justice equality love and happiness. I will gladly weigh the round in another way if you tell me how.'
Decision-making Approach: 'It depends on the type of round I m judging and the arguments the debaters are going for. However left to my own devices - --I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) '
Assessing Arguments: 'I try to handle dropped arguments the way the debaters tell me to. In the case of the PMR if the argument was a central issue or a round winning issue in the LOR then if PMR drops it it automatically becomes a round winning argument. Otherwise I assume that dropped arguments are true arguments and there strength weakeness depends on the part they play in the story of the round. I am looking for a mix of line by line and big picture. The first 4 speeches of the round should be very strong on the line by line. In the last two speeches i m looking for the debaters to tell me the story of the round - what happens if I vote for you vs. the world where I vote for your opponent. I love it when debaters tell a good even if story - "Even if they win their disad at best they get a regional war we will give them a regional war and say that it is still better to vote for us and avoid the risk of nuclear war." These kind of stories make my decision making easy. I m aware of the constraints on the PMR that you need to do the line by line and the big picture. So I give you leeway for the difficulty of this rebuttal. Still you should focus on telling a story. '
Presentational Aspects: '--Fast delivery Doesnt bother me but only do it if you are comfortable with it. I have seen slower teams beat speed teams - it is not necessary to speed up. Stick to the debate style that you are comfortable with and I will follow your lead. Go fast go slow stand on your head - however you think you will make the best arguments. --Use of gender-culture-orientation neutral or promotion language I believe debate is at its core the manipulation of language. Learning to play with language and use it to get what you want. Therefore the words we use matter. It is in your best interest in front of me to avoid slang with sexist undertones - this sucks we are getting screwed this argument is tight we are going to bitch slap them we are getting raped honey/sweetheart/dear sit down and I will answer your question in a second (and yes I have all these phrases used in round). I will not vote a team down for saying these things unless the other team tells me that I should and the offending team is unable to defend themselves. However I will dock a speaker point everytime these phrases or other offending phrases are used. --Vocal volume vocal variation eye contact poise hand gestures etc. I prefer teams that I can understand and who aren t annoying to listen to. '
Strong Viewpoints: 'Rape really is that bad and I will not in any way support female genital mutilation. Other than that I doubt you will offend me. '
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: '--Government Cases like it --Topicality Arguments like it --Disadvantages like it --Counterplans like it --Kritiks like it --Res of Facts--examples/whole resolution Annoys me but I will tolerate it. --Value-Criteria arguments i m never sure what to do with these. Like I said above I dont know how to weigh a round through justice. If you want me to use these then tell me how and I will do my best.'
Other Items to Note: 'I do my best to judge rounds the way I am asked to. I have voted for things I didn t like and I m pretty sure I will do it again sometime in the future. Unless you do something really annoying I doubt it will show in your speaks. So don t waste too much time adapting your style to me. Debate the way you are comfortable avoid using sexist language and we should get along just fine. Good luck!! '