Belcher
02-10-11, 07:08 PM
I think that judging philosophies are lies. So let me lie at you for a while...
Background:
I was a high school CXer and debated college policy for a year and NPTE-style parli for 3 years. I’ve been judging and coaching high school policy for seven years now.
I know how to flow. You can go fast. Tag-teaming is fine.
Overview:
I think that debate rounds are entirely up to what the debaters involved want. The theories and norms of the debate community are just that, theories and norms. Feel free to break them if you feel you can justify such an action. I will always try to evaluate the arguments presented to me.
That being said, absent an alternative framework I will default to a policy making framework where I will evaluate the desirability of plan against the status quo or a competing policy option. I will evaluate that desirability via an arbitrary combination of magnitude, probability and time frame. The combination will change with my mood. You should probably weigh those things for me.
You should never assume I know anything about anything. I’m not Jon Mccabe, chances are I didn’t read that wikipedia page.
Theory/Procedurals:
As a debater I enjoyed theory debates. As a judge I tend to hate them. Parli debaters need to learn to slow down in their theory blocks and use tag-lines for their theory arguments. If I only have time to write down the word ‘limits,’ chances are you’re not going to win that flow.
I believe that theory should be evaluated via competing interpretations. This refers to all theory arguments, not just T. I think that theoretical objections should be evaluated first. Aff’s should be expected to spec to the extent of the resolution.
The K:
I’m down. I don’t think they need explicit frameworks or alternatives in all situations; a critical argument that turns case seems like perfectly fine offense to me. However, those things do tend to make the round clearer and I’m a fan of that.
I’m not a big on project arguments that attack the structure of debate, I prefer you link your criticisms to plan action or a speech act, but that’s not to say that you can’t run them in front of me. I just happen to like the structures of debate and think that parli is way more inclusive than policy.
CPs:
Fine by me. I assume that CP’s are conditional unless otherwise stated. My definition of dispo is “you can kick it if it’s proven uncompetitive.” PICs Good. Delay and Consult Bad. Multiple CPs (or K alts for that matter) is iffy in such a short format.
DAs:
Also fine. However, I hate ‘tix and econ DAs. Please run a DA that intrinsically links to plan action. My understanding of fiat is that I’m supposed to compare the world of the plan to the world of the SQ. Plan isn’t passed, it exists. I’m aware that that kills generic neg ground. Luckily no one runs fiat theory, so you probably still get your ‘tix. Also, the econ is down. Really down.
Speaks:
An average score is 27.5. I give out mostly 27’s-28’s.
You lose points if: You take a shit on my flow, you’re mean to your opponent/partner, or if you’re offensive. You get points if: You’re organized, you’re smart, you’re nice, or if you’re funny.
I realize that in the debate community there’s sometimes very little difference between funny and offensive. Toe that line at your own risk.
---
Michael Belcher
UOregon 2005-2010
Background:
I was a high school CXer and debated college policy for a year and NPTE-style parli for 3 years. I’ve been judging and coaching high school policy for seven years now.
I know how to flow. You can go fast. Tag-teaming is fine.
Overview:
I think that debate rounds are entirely up to what the debaters involved want. The theories and norms of the debate community are just that, theories and norms. Feel free to break them if you feel you can justify such an action. I will always try to evaluate the arguments presented to me.
That being said, absent an alternative framework I will default to a policy making framework where I will evaluate the desirability of plan against the status quo or a competing policy option. I will evaluate that desirability via an arbitrary combination of magnitude, probability and time frame. The combination will change with my mood. You should probably weigh those things for me.
You should never assume I know anything about anything. I’m not Jon Mccabe, chances are I didn’t read that wikipedia page.
Theory/Procedurals:
As a debater I enjoyed theory debates. As a judge I tend to hate them. Parli debaters need to learn to slow down in their theory blocks and use tag-lines for their theory arguments. If I only have time to write down the word ‘limits,’ chances are you’re not going to win that flow.
I believe that theory should be evaluated via competing interpretations. This refers to all theory arguments, not just T. I think that theoretical objections should be evaluated first. Aff’s should be expected to spec to the extent of the resolution.
The K:
I’m down. I don’t think they need explicit frameworks or alternatives in all situations; a critical argument that turns case seems like perfectly fine offense to me. However, those things do tend to make the round clearer and I’m a fan of that.
I’m not a big on project arguments that attack the structure of debate, I prefer you link your criticisms to plan action or a speech act, but that’s not to say that you can’t run them in front of me. I just happen to like the structures of debate and think that parli is way more inclusive than policy.
CPs:
Fine by me. I assume that CP’s are conditional unless otherwise stated. My definition of dispo is “you can kick it if it’s proven uncompetitive.” PICs Good. Delay and Consult Bad. Multiple CPs (or K alts for that matter) is iffy in such a short format.
DAs:
Also fine. However, I hate ‘tix and econ DAs. Please run a DA that intrinsically links to plan action. My understanding of fiat is that I’m supposed to compare the world of the plan to the world of the SQ. Plan isn’t passed, it exists. I’m aware that that kills generic neg ground. Luckily no one runs fiat theory, so you probably still get your ‘tix. Also, the econ is down. Really down.
Speaks:
An average score is 27.5. I give out mostly 27’s-28’s.
You lose points if: You take a shit on my flow, you’re mean to your opponent/partner, or if you’re offensive. You get points if: You’re organized, you’re smart, you’re nice, or if you’re funny.
I realize that in the debate community there’s sometimes very little difference between funny and offensive. Toe that line at your own risk.
---
Michael Belcher
UOregon 2005-2010