Northwest College - Jan 4-5 | Status: Completed
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
<p>experienced judge moderate speed.</p>
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
<p> My CX judging paradigm is best described as tabula rasa. I view debate as a logic activity and sign my ballot for the side whose arguments, analysis and reasoning weigh most heavily at round’s end based on my flow. I am a firm believer in low-point decisions. I harbor a disposition against resolution-based kritiks (kritiks applied to actual arguments or case elements are welcomed, just don’t tell me Aff. loses because the resolution itself is inherently flawed). Speed is fine but I ask if you use speed, do so for a purpose and not for speed’s sake (i.e.-if you’re going to talk fast, fill your speaking time!). I will give a courtesy warning if clarity becomes an issue due to a debater's rate of delivery. Theory and metadebate arguments are welcomed. To make me a happy judge and earn high speaks: 1. Clash lots, 2. Clearly state where you want your arguments applied on the flow and 3. Provide clear end-of-round voters or an impact calculus so I know why you think you’ve won the debate. Still have questions about me — ask pre-round!</p>
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a