ajjenkinsa
12-22-10, 08:57 PM
Seeing as I'll be judging at the Mile High, Whitman, and Nationals... I figured I should probably put together a judging philosophy. Here it goes:
Background
I did 4 years of high school policy, one year of CEDA, and 3 years of parliamentary debate at CSU Long Beach. I currently coach policy and parliamentary debate at a high school program in Orange County and occasionally travel with the Long Beach debate team to coach and judge. I'm currently studying Communications and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
Framing the debate
The way that I evaluate the debate round is entirely contingent upon the framework that is established by the teams in the debate. Walking into the round, I think it’s fair to assume that the affirmative is going to advocate some kind of simulated policy option and the negative is going to either defend the status quo or read a competitive policy option. However, I’m open to any alternative epistemological, ontological, or deontological framework that provides a different lens for evaluating the debate round.
Topicality/Theory
Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate procedural and theoretical arguments through a lens of competing interpretations. However, the impact debate in topicality rounds is really important to me. It’s not sufficient to just extend an interpretation and mutter the words, “fairness and education.” Some discussion of what specific ground you lost and why that ground is particularly important would be useful in winning my ballot. This doesn’t mean reading entire arguments that prove the abuse; but rather, reference them and explain where the abuse could have happened. In terms of theory, I’m usually compelled to reject the argument and not the team. So if you want me to reject the team for reading a severance permutation, as opposed to just rejecting the perm, you need to make sophisticated impact arguments.
For the love of God, please at least answer one POI. If you do that, I’ll be less likely to think you’re a total douche that cares more about spreading the other team out than having a good debate.
I think this trend of writing out copies of the plan, CP, and alternative text is a great one. It increases mutual accountability and ensures that theory debates remain consistent. With that being said, use some basic sensibility when asking for a written copy. If someone’s permutation is literally “do both,” you shouldn’t need a written text.
Kritiks
I think kritiks are perfectly legitimate arguments that question the representations of the affirmative. This doesn’t mean I’m opposed to framework arguments that exclude the evaluation of the alternative. I just think you need other options and a damn good theoretical justification for wholesale rejecting their argument. Furthermore, I think substantive claims about which impacts should be prioritized are much more persuasive than blipped out theory arguments. Also, if you plan to go for a permutation in the PMR, you should probably be extending specific net-benefits to the perm.
CP/DA
Although I read the Kritik for pretty much the entirety of my own debate career, I love a good CP/DA debate. I’ll be honest; I would prefer a case specific CP or PIC to a generic Executive Order CP any day. But read what you want and I’ll vote for you if you win the argument.
Speaker Points
My scale for speaker points is 26-30. If you get below a 26, it’s probably because you were an ass-hole. I think that speaker points should be about a lot more than just aesthetics and eloquence. I like to reward good arguments and innovative strategies with speaker points.
I will not accept the use of any hateful (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.) discourse in the debate round, and if the other team fails to give me a reason to vote against you because of it, I will gladly take it out on your speaker points.
In conclusion, debate what you want to debate, and what you are good at. Don’t make assumptions about me based on arguments that I’ve read in my own debate career. We all do this activity for a variety of unique and different reasons. Don’t change that for me.
I think accountability is incredibly important, so please feel free to contact me with any additional questions you have about my judging paradigm. Keep in mind though that a judging philosophy is never a fixed description of how one feels about debate. The best way to find an accurate answer for your questions is to ask other competitors.
My email address: feministactivism@gmail.com
Background
I did 4 years of high school policy, one year of CEDA, and 3 years of parliamentary debate at CSU Long Beach. I currently coach policy and parliamentary debate at a high school program in Orange County and occasionally travel with the Long Beach debate team to coach and judge. I'm currently studying Communications and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
Framing the debate
The way that I evaluate the debate round is entirely contingent upon the framework that is established by the teams in the debate. Walking into the round, I think it’s fair to assume that the affirmative is going to advocate some kind of simulated policy option and the negative is going to either defend the status quo or read a competitive policy option. However, I’m open to any alternative epistemological, ontological, or deontological framework that provides a different lens for evaluating the debate round.
Topicality/Theory
Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate procedural and theoretical arguments through a lens of competing interpretations. However, the impact debate in topicality rounds is really important to me. It’s not sufficient to just extend an interpretation and mutter the words, “fairness and education.” Some discussion of what specific ground you lost and why that ground is particularly important would be useful in winning my ballot. This doesn’t mean reading entire arguments that prove the abuse; but rather, reference them and explain where the abuse could have happened. In terms of theory, I’m usually compelled to reject the argument and not the team. So if you want me to reject the team for reading a severance permutation, as opposed to just rejecting the perm, you need to make sophisticated impact arguments.
For the love of God, please at least answer one POI. If you do that, I’ll be less likely to think you’re a total douche that cares more about spreading the other team out than having a good debate.
I think this trend of writing out copies of the plan, CP, and alternative text is a great one. It increases mutual accountability and ensures that theory debates remain consistent. With that being said, use some basic sensibility when asking for a written copy. If someone’s permutation is literally “do both,” you shouldn’t need a written text.
Kritiks
I think kritiks are perfectly legitimate arguments that question the representations of the affirmative. This doesn’t mean I’m opposed to framework arguments that exclude the evaluation of the alternative. I just think you need other options and a damn good theoretical justification for wholesale rejecting their argument. Furthermore, I think substantive claims about which impacts should be prioritized are much more persuasive than blipped out theory arguments. Also, if you plan to go for a permutation in the PMR, you should probably be extending specific net-benefits to the perm.
CP/DA
Although I read the Kritik for pretty much the entirety of my own debate career, I love a good CP/DA debate. I’ll be honest; I would prefer a case specific CP or PIC to a generic Executive Order CP any day. But read what you want and I’ll vote for you if you win the argument.
Speaker Points
My scale for speaker points is 26-30. If you get below a 26, it’s probably because you were an ass-hole. I think that speaker points should be about a lot more than just aesthetics and eloquence. I like to reward good arguments and innovative strategies with speaker points.
I will not accept the use of any hateful (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.) discourse in the debate round, and if the other team fails to give me a reason to vote against you because of it, I will gladly take it out on your speaker points.
In conclusion, debate what you want to debate, and what you are good at. Don’t make assumptions about me based on arguments that I’ve read in my own debate career. We all do this activity for a variety of unique and different reasons. Don’t change that for me.
I think accountability is incredibly important, so please feel free to contact me with any additional questions you have about my judging paradigm. Keep in mind though that a judging philosophy is never a fixed description of how one feels about debate. The best way to find an accurate answer for your questions is to ask other competitors.
My email address: feministactivism@gmail.com