kissmycls
11-27-06, 12:26 PM
This is from the 2006 NPTE.
Kara Borden
University of Puget Sound
Parli Debates judged this year: 30+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 50+ Policy debates
Years Judging Debate: 1 year (college) 5 years (high scool)
Years Competed in Debate: 8 years policy debate
What School Competed at: University of Oregon
Making Decisions: 'While I probably fit most into the first statement about my decision being based on how the debaters argue this does not mean I come into the round thinking all arguments are necessarily equally legitimate. For example reverse voting issue arguments that say that the aff should win the debate because running T was a timesuck will face more of an uphill battle than other arguments in the debate.'
Decision-making Approach: 'I focus on comparison (the government just needs to show their case is stronger than their opponents). This means to me that the aff should present some sort of advocacy (in many cases a plan) and in order to win they should prove that it is better than the status quo a competitive CP or a K alternative. '
Assessing Arguments: 'Dropped arguments are obviously given more weight than an argument that has been sufficiently answered by the other side. However if an argument is not well impacted or developed to begin with it will probably not be a round winner. Also it is necessary to do more than just say "this argument is dropped it s a voting issue." Doing impact comparison in terms of magnitude timeframe probability etc. will get you much further. I m also a fan of the even if style of impact comparison for example: "even if we lose our second advantage we’re still winning that advantage one outweighs any of their disads because the timeframe of global warming is faster and more likely than their war scenarios." In terms of line by line vs. big picture ideally both should occur. However given my background in debate I tend to stick to the flow very closely and will certainly look back to it when determining the winner in a debate. However don t take this as a desire to avoid big picture issues since as described above impact comparison is fundamental to debate.'
Presentational Aspects: 'Fast delivery is fine though I don t necessarily prefer a fast debate. I prefer gender-neutral language but believe that this is an issue that can be debated out within the round. I will generally be looking down at the flow during the debate writing down your arguments so chances are I won t notice your eye contact or hand gestures. Overly loud delivery can be unpleasant to listen to.'
Strong Viewpoints: 'I attempt to leave my political or personal viewpoints out of the round and don t believe this should be an issue. If you have a question on a particular issue feel free to ask me before the debate.'
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I m more comfortable judging debates with a plan. You can run res of fact or value/criteria cases but they might need a bit more explaining in terms of framework issues. Topicality DAs CPs and Kritiks are all fine and encouraged. I don t have real strong predispositions on CP/K theory and can be persuaded that certain CPs/K alts are abusive and a reason why the other team should lose the debate.'
Other Items to Note: 'Again feel free to ask me any questions at the tournament or before the debate.'
Kara Borden
University of Puget Sound
Parli Debates judged this year: 30+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 50+ Policy debates
Years Judging Debate: 1 year (college) 5 years (high scool)
Years Competed in Debate: 8 years policy debate
What School Competed at: University of Oregon
Making Decisions: 'While I probably fit most into the first statement about my decision being based on how the debaters argue this does not mean I come into the round thinking all arguments are necessarily equally legitimate. For example reverse voting issue arguments that say that the aff should win the debate because running T was a timesuck will face more of an uphill battle than other arguments in the debate.'
Decision-making Approach: 'I focus on comparison (the government just needs to show their case is stronger than their opponents). This means to me that the aff should present some sort of advocacy (in many cases a plan) and in order to win they should prove that it is better than the status quo a competitive CP or a K alternative. '
Assessing Arguments: 'Dropped arguments are obviously given more weight than an argument that has been sufficiently answered by the other side. However if an argument is not well impacted or developed to begin with it will probably not be a round winner. Also it is necessary to do more than just say "this argument is dropped it s a voting issue." Doing impact comparison in terms of magnitude timeframe probability etc. will get you much further. I m also a fan of the even if style of impact comparison for example: "even if we lose our second advantage we’re still winning that advantage one outweighs any of their disads because the timeframe of global warming is faster and more likely than their war scenarios." In terms of line by line vs. big picture ideally both should occur. However given my background in debate I tend to stick to the flow very closely and will certainly look back to it when determining the winner in a debate. However don t take this as a desire to avoid big picture issues since as described above impact comparison is fundamental to debate.'
Presentational Aspects: 'Fast delivery is fine though I don t necessarily prefer a fast debate. I prefer gender-neutral language but believe that this is an issue that can be debated out within the round. I will generally be looking down at the flow during the debate writing down your arguments so chances are I won t notice your eye contact or hand gestures. Overly loud delivery can be unpleasant to listen to.'
Strong Viewpoints: 'I attempt to leave my political or personal viewpoints out of the round and don t believe this should be an issue. If you have a question on a particular issue feel free to ask me before the debate.'
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I m more comfortable judging debates with a plan. You can run res of fact or value/criteria cases but they might need a bit more explaining in terms of framework issues. Topicality DAs CPs and Kritiks are all fine and encouraged. I don t have real strong predispositions on CP/K theory and can be persuaded that certain CPs/K alts are abusive and a reason why the other team should lose the debate.'
Other Items to Note: 'Again feel free to ask me any questions at the tournament or before the debate.'