kissmycls
11-27-06, 12:14 PM
This is from the 2006 NPTE.
Jason Steck
Century
Parli Debates judged this year: 40+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: NFA-LD 20+
Years Judging Debate: 6
Years Competed in Debate: 4
What School Competed at: Creighton
Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I believe that "tabula rosa" is a myth and a dangerous one for the debaters who foolishly believe it. It is simply impossible for the debaters in the time that they have to specify every single element of how to weigh arguments. So judges that just say "I vote on the flow" are denying you information you desperately need about HOW they "vote on the flow". My decision-making criteria are two-fold -- links and impacts. Outweighing on impact is as with most judges very important but the LINK is even more important. You can t "vote on the risk" until the risk itself has been established -- that means establishing the link as substantial enough to actually create a significant risk of solvency or disad.'
Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on proof of the resolution or government case (the government must prove their case and/or the resolution against all opposition arguments) Whomever asserts must prove. That means the first burden falls on the government to demonstrate a sound case with advantages/implications worthy of voting upon that also upholds a linguistically sound interpretation of the resolution. That having been done the burden of rejoinder falls to the opposition. Any argument that either delegitimizes the government s case (topicality some kritiks other procedurals) or outweighs the government s case (disads counterplans some kritiks) can warrant an opp ballot.'
Assessing Arguments: 'Dropped arguments receive their full weight no more or less. If it s a weak argument that is for example just an empty assertion lacking warrants it gets "full weight" meaning very light weight in comparison to other arguments that have warrants. Its not an "aboslute voter" just because someone asserts it as such -- there has to be a REASON (that is a warrant). If it s a strong argument with warrants (regardless of whether I agree with its conclusions) then it will receive heavy weight. I prefer a mixture of BOTH line-by-line and big-picture arguments. One of the most common missed opportunities in debate (all forms) is losing the forest for the trees by focusing too much on line-by-line. Line-by-line is very important but it can in extreme cases cause debaters to miss interconnections and/or subtle contradictions that could be very important if identified and exploited in a big-picture approach in rebuttals.'
Presentational Aspects: 'As long as I can understand you AND your opponents can understand you fast delivery is fine. Exclusion by extreme speed can be bad however. I don t really care about "gendered language" unless impacted in a way that makes it relevant to the issues in the round. Style is YOUR CHOICE. Use it effectively and I couldn t care less about trying to micromanage your stylistic choices.'
Strong Viewpoints: 'I tend to dislike political correctness and appeals to bias that lack warrants. For example I didn t vote for Bush and I am counting the days until the end of this administration but just running "Bush sucks" without arguments and warrants as to why is likely to get me to backlash just out of a desire that debaters broaden their arguments beyond the easy appeals to the communal bias that dominates the community. Conversely debaters should feel free to make arguments from any political perspective leftist through conservative (I would probably draw the line short of the extreme right) with confidence that I won t intervene against those arguments based on my personal political assessment of them. '
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'Just like stylistic choices argumentative choices are the province for debaters own creativity. I love creative arguments and provocative new ideas. I ll never set down a list of rules that say what you can and cannot run -- try them all. In my opinion debate at this level should be about debaters creatively advancing the frontiers of argument and persuasion not about judges trying to recall some dimly-remembered "golden days" when everything was done exactly a certain way. '
Other Items to Note: 'Please ask questions about any confusion or ambiguities you might perceive in the above. Don t ask "what s your paradigm" because you re just likely to get whatever is flitting through my mind from the last round or from prep. Try to have some focus on exactly what you need to know. I don t bite. Well not very hard.'
Jason Steck
Century
Parli Debates judged this year: 40+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: NFA-LD 20+
Years Judging Debate: 6
Years Competed in Debate: 4
What School Competed at: Creighton
Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I believe that "tabula rosa" is a myth and a dangerous one for the debaters who foolishly believe it. It is simply impossible for the debaters in the time that they have to specify every single element of how to weigh arguments. So judges that just say "I vote on the flow" are denying you information you desperately need about HOW they "vote on the flow". My decision-making criteria are two-fold -- links and impacts. Outweighing on impact is as with most judges very important but the LINK is even more important. You can t "vote on the risk" until the risk itself has been established -- that means establishing the link as substantial enough to actually create a significant risk of solvency or disad.'
Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on proof of the resolution or government case (the government must prove their case and/or the resolution against all opposition arguments) Whomever asserts must prove. That means the first burden falls on the government to demonstrate a sound case with advantages/implications worthy of voting upon that also upholds a linguistically sound interpretation of the resolution. That having been done the burden of rejoinder falls to the opposition. Any argument that either delegitimizes the government s case (topicality some kritiks other procedurals) or outweighs the government s case (disads counterplans some kritiks) can warrant an opp ballot.'
Assessing Arguments: 'Dropped arguments receive their full weight no more or less. If it s a weak argument that is for example just an empty assertion lacking warrants it gets "full weight" meaning very light weight in comparison to other arguments that have warrants. Its not an "aboslute voter" just because someone asserts it as such -- there has to be a REASON (that is a warrant). If it s a strong argument with warrants (regardless of whether I agree with its conclusions) then it will receive heavy weight. I prefer a mixture of BOTH line-by-line and big-picture arguments. One of the most common missed opportunities in debate (all forms) is losing the forest for the trees by focusing too much on line-by-line. Line-by-line is very important but it can in extreme cases cause debaters to miss interconnections and/or subtle contradictions that could be very important if identified and exploited in a big-picture approach in rebuttals.'
Presentational Aspects: 'As long as I can understand you AND your opponents can understand you fast delivery is fine. Exclusion by extreme speed can be bad however. I don t really care about "gendered language" unless impacted in a way that makes it relevant to the issues in the round. Style is YOUR CHOICE. Use it effectively and I couldn t care less about trying to micromanage your stylistic choices.'
Strong Viewpoints: 'I tend to dislike political correctness and appeals to bias that lack warrants. For example I didn t vote for Bush and I am counting the days until the end of this administration but just running "Bush sucks" without arguments and warrants as to why is likely to get me to backlash just out of a desire that debaters broaden their arguments beyond the easy appeals to the communal bias that dominates the community. Conversely debaters should feel free to make arguments from any political perspective leftist through conservative (I would probably draw the line short of the extreme right) with confidence that I won t intervene against those arguments based on my personal political assessment of them. '
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'Just like stylistic choices argumentative choices are the province for debaters own creativity. I love creative arguments and provocative new ideas. I ll never set down a list of rules that say what you can and cannot run -- try them all. In my opinion debate at this level should be about debaters creatively advancing the frontiers of argument and persuasion not about judges trying to recall some dimly-remembered "golden days" when everything was done exactly a certain way. '
Other Items to Note: 'Please ask questions about any confusion or ambiguities you might perceive in the above. Don t ask "what s your paradigm" because you re just likely to get whatever is flitting through my mind from the last round or from prep. Try to have some focus on exactly what you need to know. I don t bite. Well not very hard.'