kissmycls
11-29-06, 12:25 PM
This is from the 2006 NPDA.
Joe Blasdel - McKendree College
# of Debates Judged this Year: 60+ # of years Judging: 3
General Information: I competed in parliamentary debate from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree College. After a three
year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree and have been doing so for the last two years.
Stylistically, I think constructives are about the line by line and rebuttals are about the big picture. If you can win
on the flow in constructives and provide me a cogent justification for my ballot during the rebuttal, you’ll probably win my ballot.
Specific Information:
1. I have a somewhat higher threshold for topicality than other judges. If the government provides a reasonable
interpretation, I’m probably not going to vote on topicality (though I may accept it as a way of setting up other
arguments - counterwarrants, links to DAs, etc.). If the opposition can show the interpretation to be
unreasonable, I’ll vote on topicality without hesitation.
2. I like critical debate. Unfortunately, teams often fail to supply a voting rationale when running Ks. If you’re going to run Ks, be sure to give me a clear justification for voting on them.
3. In a policy debate (which is probably 80% of NPDA debates), I usually end up weighing advantages and disadvantages (or comparing the plan and counterplan) to determine who wins. So unless you’ve got a great K or are winning big on T, it’s not a good idea to avoid case debate.
4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block. Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new. Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR.
Joe Blasdel - McKendree College
# of Debates Judged this Year: 60+ # of years Judging: 3
General Information: I competed in parliamentary debate from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree College. After a three
year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree and have been doing so for the last two years.
Stylistically, I think constructives are about the line by line and rebuttals are about the big picture. If you can win
on the flow in constructives and provide me a cogent justification for my ballot during the rebuttal, you’ll probably win my ballot.
Specific Information:
1. I have a somewhat higher threshold for topicality than other judges. If the government provides a reasonable
interpretation, I’m probably not going to vote on topicality (though I may accept it as a way of setting up other
arguments - counterwarrants, links to DAs, etc.). If the opposition can show the interpretation to be
unreasonable, I’ll vote on topicality without hesitation.
2. I like critical debate. Unfortunately, teams often fail to supply a voting rationale when running Ks. If you’re going to run Ks, be sure to give me a clear justification for voting on them.
3. In a policy debate (which is probably 80% of NPDA debates), I usually end up weighing advantages and disadvantages (or comparing the plan and counterplan) to determine who wins. So unless you’ve got a great K or are winning big on T, it’s not a good idea to avoid case debate.
4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block. Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new. Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR.