Chris Pierini
01-07-11, 12:30 PM
I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated mainly NPTE style Parli at UW for 2 years. I’ve had on and off high school coaching and judging during my undergraduate at UW. I'm now co-head coach at UW. This will be my 10th year involved with debate.
(Stolen from Nate Cohn, my old high school partner): Two factors frame how I assess debate rounds.
• Technique comes before truth.
• Offense vs. Defense. This means that if there no solvency deficit to the CP and no offense on the DA/CP, I've pretty much already voted negative. "Zero Risk" doesn't make much sense to me except in rare “factual” instances (ie: the plan has literally already happened). This doesn’t mean that defense isn’t vital to an effective strategy; it just means that defense is insufficient to warrant a ballot on its own.
In General:
• My flow is strict and speed is fine.
• I do NOT believe in the trichotomy.
• I default net benefits if no other framework is given.
• Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me (and your opponents) a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word.
DA and CP:
• Yes
• I debated a lot of politic DA’s
Theory:
• My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument.
• Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/ whatever is an impact-able argument. Additionally, you should probably make arguments about how to weight these VI's against each other if there in conflict.
• Do to the order of speeches when theoretical arguments are run and no backside rebuttals mean I have to at least somewhat protect the other side.
• Potential abuse isn't a voter period.
K:
• I didn’t run them but I had to answer a lot of them.
• I'm not very familiar with hyper specific critical literature. Your standard cap, boarders, Agamben, orenintalism etc I will understand. Whether or not it’s a good argument depends on your skill. Poorly run K’s are miserable to arbitrate.
• I'm probably going to need a framework debate and I better understand the world of your alternative creates.
POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration". My flow will protect you just let them give their speech.
POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.
Speaker Points:
• 27-29.5 standard range.
• I give out about one 30 in two tournaments.
• Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round.
• I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents.
(Stolen from Nate Cohn, my old high school partner): Two factors frame how I assess debate rounds.
• Technique comes before truth.
• Offense vs. Defense. This means that if there no solvency deficit to the CP and no offense on the DA/CP, I've pretty much already voted negative. "Zero Risk" doesn't make much sense to me except in rare “factual” instances (ie: the plan has literally already happened). This doesn’t mean that defense isn’t vital to an effective strategy; it just means that defense is insufficient to warrant a ballot on its own.
In General:
• My flow is strict and speed is fine.
• I do NOT believe in the trichotomy.
• I default net benefits if no other framework is given.
• Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me (and your opponents) a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word.
DA and CP:
• Yes
• I debated a lot of politic DA’s
Theory:
• My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument.
• Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/ whatever is an impact-able argument. Additionally, you should probably make arguments about how to weight these VI's against each other if there in conflict.
• Do to the order of speeches when theoretical arguments are run and no backside rebuttals mean I have to at least somewhat protect the other side.
• Potential abuse isn't a voter period.
K:
• I didn’t run them but I had to answer a lot of them.
• I'm not very familiar with hyper specific critical literature. Your standard cap, boarders, Agamben, orenintalism etc I will understand. Whether or not it’s a good argument depends on your skill. Poorly run K’s are miserable to arbitrate.
• I'm probably going to need a framework debate and I better understand the world of your alternative creates.
POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration". My flow will protect you just let them give their speech.
POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.
Speaker Points:
• 27-29.5 standard range.
• I give out about one 30 in two tournaments.
• Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round.
• I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents.