DarthYoshi
09-08-08, 08:00 PM
If you're wondering which tournaments I will likely be at, I have relocated to Berkeley for grad school, so look for me at tournaments like GGI, UoP, and so on.
I’m not brand new to judging debate–I have judged high school policy, parli, and L/D debate for four years–but I’m a first-year-out of NPDA debate, so I’m still trying to get a sense for how I’d see rounds and how I am as a judge, so my philosophy is really a work in progress. If a part of my philosophy is disconcerting and you feel you can’t adapt to me, please feel free to strike me--I won't hold it against you.
In case my background matters, I graduated with a B.A. in religious studies from Lewis & Clark College, where I did NPDA debate for four years with occasional informal ventures into BP and NDT/CEDA debate. Prior to that, I did policy debate for three years in high school. I am now a grad student at the Pacific School of Religion and the Graduate Theological Union.
How I make my decision: If no weighing mechanism is given, I default to net benefits, so whichever team is more effective in weighing out the round in terms of risk, magnitude, and timeframe will probably win my ballot. While I am sympathetic to the philosophy behind the “cult of offense,” I do believe there is such a thing as terminal defense, and I find that it is sadly underutilized in parli today. That being said, Opp teams should not rely on a purely defensive strategy in trying to win my vote. Feel free to kick arguments after answering any offense on them—in the battle of breadth versus depth, I tend to side with depth anyways.
Topicality: Getting me to vote here absent articulated abuse or ground loss is not impossible, but you face an uphill battle. I don’t know what potential abuse is, but I’ll vote on it if you tell me it is bad. I’ll always evaluate T first unless you tell me not to (same goes for –spec arguments).
Counterplans: If the C/P is a better policy option than either the plan or the permutation, I’ll vote for it. They don’t have to be non-topical, but I otherwise don’t have many default theory beliefs. On theory, if there isn’t any call for the ballot, then I’ll assume that I’m supposed to reject the argument, not the team. Perms need texts, and winning the perm just means the C/P goes away.
Kritiks: I was a bit of a K hack for my last two years as a debater, so I love a good K debate. I don’t believe K’s require alternatives beyond a call for the ballot, but if you use that as your alt, some solvency subpoints would be spiffy. If you don’t want me weighing it through whatever weighing mechanism your opponents offer, some framework arguments are probably called for.
Speed: Go as fast as you want, although you probably don’t need to. If I can’t follow you, I’ll holler something to let you know. If someone asks you to slow down, please, please do so.
Points of Order: I do my best to catch new arguments in rebuttals on my own, but you should probably call points of order in case I miss them. I dislike the practice of splitting the Opp block.
Speaker points: I try to be pretty mainstream on these—my range is around 24-29, with an average of 26-27. I tend to reward persuasive, warranted arguments and strategies (although a polished speaking style is appreciated), so think of these as “debater points,” if you will.
Please ask me any questions you may have. I’m always happy to disclose my decisions.
I’m not brand new to judging debate–I have judged high school policy, parli, and L/D debate for four years–but I’m a first-year-out of NPDA debate, so I’m still trying to get a sense for how I’d see rounds and how I am as a judge, so my philosophy is really a work in progress. If a part of my philosophy is disconcerting and you feel you can’t adapt to me, please feel free to strike me--I won't hold it against you.
In case my background matters, I graduated with a B.A. in religious studies from Lewis & Clark College, where I did NPDA debate for four years with occasional informal ventures into BP and NDT/CEDA debate. Prior to that, I did policy debate for three years in high school. I am now a grad student at the Pacific School of Religion and the Graduate Theological Union.
How I make my decision: If no weighing mechanism is given, I default to net benefits, so whichever team is more effective in weighing out the round in terms of risk, magnitude, and timeframe will probably win my ballot. While I am sympathetic to the philosophy behind the “cult of offense,” I do believe there is such a thing as terminal defense, and I find that it is sadly underutilized in parli today. That being said, Opp teams should not rely on a purely defensive strategy in trying to win my vote. Feel free to kick arguments after answering any offense on them—in the battle of breadth versus depth, I tend to side with depth anyways.
Topicality: Getting me to vote here absent articulated abuse or ground loss is not impossible, but you face an uphill battle. I don’t know what potential abuse is, but I’ll vote on it if you tell me it is bad. I’ll always evaluate T first unless you tell me not to (same goes for –spec arguments).
Counterplans: If the C/P is a better policy option than either the plan or the permutation, I’ll vote for it. They don’t have to be non-topical, but I otherwise don’t have many default theory beliefs. On theory, if there isn’t any call for the ballot, then I’ll assume that I’m supposed to reject the argument, not the team. Perms need texts, and winning the perm just means the C/P goes away.
Kritiks: I was a bit of a K hack for my last two years as a debater, so I love a good K debate. I don’t believe K’s require alternatives beyond a call for the ballot, but if you use that as your alt, some solvency subpoints would be spiffy. If you don’t want me weighing it through whatever weighing mechanism your opponents offer, some framework arguments are probably called for.
Speed: Go as fast as you want, although you probably don’t need to. If I can’t follow you, I’ll holler something to let you know. If someone asks you to slow down, please, please do so.
Points of Order: I do my best to catch new arguments in rebuttals on my own, but you should probably call points of order in case I miss them. I dislike the practice of splitting the Opp block.
Speaker points: I try to be pretty mainstream on these—my range is around 24-29, with an average of 26-27. I tend to reward persuasive, warranted arguments and strategies (although a polished speaking style is appreciated), so think of these as “debater points,” if you will.
Please ask me any questions you may have. I’m always happy to disclose my decisions.