ladyoflyonnesse
03-19-09, 08:48 AM
Hi everyone and welcome to nationals! By way of introduction my name is Kristen and I graduated from Texas Tech University last year after competing for 4 wonderful years on the NPDA/NPTE national circuit. I am now a graduate coach at the University of Wyoming.
General approach to decision making:
You can run fact/ value if you believe it’s called for but you are better off justifying it by the resolution then by trying to claim it offers superior debate in a vacuum. As with everything, justify what you do in ways that jive with specifics below. In absence of other arguments I default to Procedural -->Critical --> Substantive
Importance of communication:
Speak at the rate and in the position that makes you rock the most. Good points 29-30 go to those who are not boring, make good strategic decisions/issue selection and comparison of arguments to each other. Bad points 25-26 go to those who are blatantly offensive, interrupt other teams or talk over them without permission, disrespect their partner or make me wish I was somewhere else. We can say hi before the round: speech time is for arguments not thank-yous.
Case arguments and Impacts:
Duh! Case debate is important unless the off-case is more important. Terminal impacts are super important anywhere. This means humanistic unless arguments are made otherwise. Remember that I am a judge and impact accordingly (i.e. judge intervention is a sweet deal from my side of the desk, you need to tell me otherwise). I am sympathetic to general hippie stuff i.e. human rights, systems of oppression and environmental issues and not sympathetic to war good, hege good, cap good and the like but will clearly attempt to make decisions based on the round. Just be aware where you might need to spend more time or give more background info.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART
A ton of this is borrowed from my partner Anthony Putnicki. I guess years together in the trenches will give 2 folks a similar perspective on war.
Things I will do while judging no matter what: -Stop writing after speech time runs out. -Disregard new arguments in the rebuttals, even if a P.O.O. is not called. -Take all points of order under consideration. -Be as friendly as possible.
Things I will do unless persuaded/told/stipulated by the debaters otherwise: -Vote based on my flow. -Consider Topicality (with a warranted voter) before any other argument. -Consider theory (with warranted voters) before any substance. -Disregard extensions from the PMC/LOC to the PMR/LOR without the Member extending the same argument. -Vote on net-benefits in the substantive debate. -Disregard arguments made by one teammate during their partner’s speech.
Arguments I have an extremely (but not impossibly) high threshold for: -Inherency. -Solvency/All-Defense in the LOC. -Speed bad. -Generic arguments bad. -Rape/Genocide good. -Topical Counter-Plans bad. -Fact/Value debate good.
Final Comments: -If not explicitly mentioned in the above sections, any argument/theory is probably fine. -Don’t assume that I’ve read X book or Y article. I probably haven’t. -Have the debate you want to have. I generally think that debaters are more confident/successful when they don’t pander to judges. Make the arguments you want the way you want to, and if it still doesn’t work, at least you go out on your own terms. -I won’t hold it against you if you think I made a bad decision. Feel free to tell me (without attacking me), and if you want, we can have a conversation about it. But just remember, sometimes it’s better to think you were right than be proven wrong. -I probably forgot something. If you still have questions before the tournament my email is: kowen3@uwyo.edu
General approach to decision making:
You can run fact/ value if you believe it’s called for but you are better off justifying it by the resolution then by trying to claim it offers superior debate in a vacuum. As with everything, justify what you do in ways that jive with specifics below. In absence of other arguments I default to Procedural -->Critical --> Substantive
Importance of communication:
Speak at the rate and in the position that makes you rock the most. Good points 29-30 go to those who are not boring, make good strategic decisions/issue selection and comparison of arguments to each other. Bad points 25-26 go to those who are blatantly offensive, interrupt other teams or talk over them without permission, disrespect their partner or make me wish I was somewhere else. We can say hi before the round: speech time is for arguments not thank-yous.
Case arguments and Impacts:
Duh! Case debate is important unless the off-case is more important. Terminal impacts are super important anywhere. This means humanistic unless arguments are made otherwise. Remember that I am a judge and impact accordingly (i.e. judge intervention is a sweet deal from my side of the desk, you need to tell me otherwise). I am sympathetic to general hippie stuff i.e. human rights, systems of oppression and environmental issues and not sympathetic to war good, hege good, cap good and the like but will clearly attempt to make decisions based on the round. Just be aware where you might need to spend more time or give more background info.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART
A ton of this is borrowed from my partner Anthony Putnicki. I guess years together in the trenches will give 2 folks a similar perspective on war.
Things I will do while judging no matter what: -Stop writing after speech time runs out. -Disregard new arguments in the rebuttals, even if a P.O.O. is not called. -Take all points of order under consideration. -Be as friendly as possible.
Things I will do unless persuaded/told/stipulated by the debaters otherwise: -Vote based on my flow. -Consider Topicality (with a warranted voter) before any other argument. -Consider theory (with warranted voters) before any substance. -Disregard extensions from the PMC/LOC to the PMR/LOR without the Member extending the same argument. -Vote on net-benefits in the substantive debate. -Disregard arguments made by one teammate during their partner’s speech.
Arguments I have an extremely (but not impossibly) high threshold for: -Inherency. -Solvency/All-Defense in the LOC. -Speed bad. -Generic arguments bad. -Rape/Genocide good. -Topical Counter-Plans bad. -Fact/Value debate good.
Final Comments: -If not explicitly mentioned in the above sections, any argument/theory is probably fine. -Don’t assume that I’ve read X book or Y article. I probably haven’t. -Have the debate you want to have. I generally think that debaters are more confident/successful when they don’t pander to judges. Make the arguments you want the way you want to, and if it still doesn’t work, at least you go out on your own terms. -I won’t hold it against you if you think I made a bad decision. Feel free to tell me (without attacking me), and if you want, we can have a conversation about it. But just remember, sometimes it’s better to think you were right than be proven wrong. -I probably forgot something. If you still have questions before the tournament my email is: kowen3@uwyo.edu