Judge Philosophies
Carolyn Clarke - Highland
IE paradigm: I will not provide one because I truly believe you need to trust your coaches and learn from your ballots. I don't like the idea of students completely switching up their event because of one judge's paradigm. I get it, audience analysis, but I also think there is power in making a decision and owning it regardless.
What I will say though, is that I appreciate when there are content warning for speeches that need them. That said, I understand that what "need" means can get subjective. Very rarely do I make this have weight in my judging decisions unless the piece is so graphic that it *in my opinion* really, really requires one. When in doubt, ask your coaches about this. I will NOT weigh this at all at Phi Rho Pi.
Now here's the good stuff:
~*Debate Paradigm*~
*Please take my directness in this paradigm as only my opinion-- there is no "wrong" way of doing things and when in doubt, listen to your coach! This paradigm just describes stylistically/behaviorally, what I prefer in a debate. :)*
Background: My debate experience is four years of NPDA and two years of IPDA competition. I've also had some additional student experience in policy debate, coaching experience in public forum, and judging experience in LD. I participated in IE as well. When it comes to debate, my paradigm prefers debate styles that are more common at tournaments such as Pi Kappa Delta as opposed to the styles more commonly associated with NPDA nationals, IPDA nationals, or Phi Rho Pi.
I consider myself a "mostly" tabula rasa judge-- but I also understand that some arguments are stronger than others. I would like to be directly told why one argument should be valued over the other. I like being blatantly told, reminded, and shown how and why you are winning over your opponents. I also like impact calculus.
I tend to find debates about debate more interesting than the context of the resolution--- unless that context allows for passion and pathos. I love philisophical arguments and when things get meta. That being said, I just love debate in general. I will enjoy watching a great debate no matter what your approach may be. :)
I firmly believe that everything in debate is up for debate and there are very few "rules". The rules are the timeframes in which you speak, if there is flex time, using internet within rounds, etc. When it comes to arguments, to me, there are no rules.
I think debate should be accessible. Thus, I hate speed. Do not speed. If you are gasping, you are speeding. If your opponent or I say "clear", slow down or it will really effect your speaker points. Like I will cut them in half. Speed = inaccessable to many people and thus, makes for crappy debate. It's also hinders genuine persuasion. If your idea of winning means putting the most on the flow and hoping the other team drops arguments due to your speed----What does that say about your confidence in logical argumentation and engagement with your opponents? Just don't speed. It's cringe. I also have a very hard time understanding speed and can't flow it so you risk me dropping all of your arguments. It's a risk you don't want to take with me.
Continuing on accessiblity: Jargon - I know pretty much all debate jargon but, just like jargon in any context, it should be explained before using it. This makes it more accessible to your audience and competitors who may not know the term you are using. So don't just say "Perm the counterplan" first explain what a perm is.
The rest of my paradigm will be organized into subject areas:
On General Argumentation: As a judge, I want to hear all of the "hows" and "whys". I vote on arguments, not claims. I love good links. Show me how you got to your claim. I will not make links for you. Also, I really love fully fledged out impacts. How does your arg impact back to the WM? The resolution? The debate? Debate as a whole? Outside the realm of debate? Show and tell me why your argument matters and why I should care. Be direct. I value directness and crystalization over poetic langauge. Tell me exactly what is happening in the round. I generally don't consider arguments that don't have links or impacts on the flow. If your opponent lacks links or impacts bring that up to me!
On evidence: I believe, once a form of debate open the floodgates to citing sources, the source along with its credibility can be up for debate. Cite your dates because that is also up for debate. Sources are not evidence-- they are used to validate your evidence. Evidence is an example "proving" your claim or link. I firmly believe that, at least in IPDA & NPDA, sources are not necessary to win a round. However, evidence, is.
On organization: I prefer clear hierarchical structure. Give me your 1's, 2's, A's and B's. Example:
Contention II.
A.
1.
a.
b.
2.
a.
b.
B. ....... get it?
Label your structure so it can be easily found on the flow. I expect this in Parli. I know it may not always be realistic in IPDA.
On Resolutional Analysis: I expect clear, concrete, definitions. Don't leave room for questions. Put it all on the table and own it. Neg - if something feels fishy or unfair, it probably is. Figure it out and call it out. Be direct and again, own it.
On definitions: Neg does not just get to bring up definitions willy-nilly. They need to have a justification as to why. It's aff's burden and right to define the round and set the parameters on it. Neg does not get to change that just because they want to. Unless aff is being 1. abusive in the way they have set up the round, 2. Is flat out wrong and is framing the round in a way that is not in line with the resoltuion, 3. Is so vague that clarification needs to occur or 4. The choices were so offensive that it becomes something that cannot be debated, then AFF is who gets to define the round. Also neg, you need to explain which of those four violations has occured and why it matters. Aff, even if they don''t provide those links and impacts, you still need to combat the argument by proving you aren't doing whatever the violation is.
On Trichotomy in Parli and IPDA: I am used to and expect cases to be fact, value, or policy ("metaphor" can just be sorted into one of those 3). While I prefer policy rounds, I do not come from the mindset that all rounds are or should be policy. There is an entire form of debate dedicated to that, and it isn't IPDA or NPDA. I tend to sympathize with opp teams facing unpredictably defined rounds on the basis of trichotomy, but it needs to be brought up and called out directly. I will not make that argument for the negative.
On Performative Debate: If you can justify it, can defend it, and are direct about it, I'm open. Tell me what is going on though. Like, if you want to bring out a guitar for a debate round...or play pretend with the room... OK, but warrant it.
On Abuse: I accept all forms of abuse arguments. However, I expect to be walked through HOW the abuse occurs and I need to know why it matters 1. To the round but 2. More importantly, out of this round. Why should we care about abuse in debate? What are the implications of letting your opponents do what they are doing? Tell. me.
Kritiks: I accept K's. I actually love them--- but I find resolutional K's to be incredibly frustrating. I feel they are often used as a tactic to just catch opponents off guard as opposed to making a genuine, contextual, and appropriate critique on what is happening in the round. Please do the latter if you are going to run a K.
Counterplans: Ew. I accept counterplans but they annoy me. Especially in IPDA. The only time I think a counterplan is necessary is when the harms are so valid that refuting them would be offensive. If you are running a counterplan, they NEED to be nontopical (as in, I still expect neg to uphold the burden of refutation and oppose the resolution. Aff needs to be upholding of the resolution, not neg). I also expect the plan to meet all of the solvency and advantages that the original plan does, plus more. AND, it needs to be mutually exclusive to the original plan. Whenever it's not, I always hope that the affirmative perms the counterplan. I accept perms with little justification. To me, if neg decides to run a counterplan that does not directly conflict with the original plan, Aff can say "ok, we will do both, and claim all of the advantages!"-- in that case, I'd give the round to an affirmative team. So. Long story short, I don't like counterplans and I don't think they are as an effective approach as disads. I think running a counterplan is less competitive. In my experience, it reduces clash, which makes for worse debates.
Illegal Should Would Arguments: The affirmative has fiat power. The plan passes. Period. It doesn't get bogged down in congress, there is no "well so and so will veto this". Nope. As far as I am concerned, the plan passes the moment the aff is done announcing it.
Weighing Mechanism: I do not like "preponderance of evidence" as a WM because it values the evidence part of the argument over the arguments as a whole. When you run that as a WM, you open the door to the other team citing more sources than you and then arguing "well, we had more evidence, our evidence was of higher quality, etc. and thus we win the round." that to me is incredibly frustrating. I want clash, logic, and direct refutation. Not wins because of "I had more/better evidence". Even worse, I dislike "judge, however you feel personally". That opens a nasty can of worms--- when this happens, I tend to vote for the team that did not establish that WM. Because I personally feel that is a bad WM. That demonstrates the problem with that WM.
Partner to partner communication: I accept whispering and quietly communicating with your partner during the round (although, not verbally DURING your partner's speech). Flashing notes is fine, but if you speak during your partner's speech it will negatively affect your speaker points.
Shaming or hissing - will negatively effect your speaker points. Like, I will cut them in half. If your opponent offends you or says something offensive it is so much more competitive and persuasive to bring it up in the round as a K or a voter. That said, usually when I have heard shaming or hissing it isn't even warranted. "I am winning over my opponent because..." does not warrant that.
Questions: If there is dedicated time to cross X or flex, don't ask questions during folks' speeches. Ask them during the dedicated time.
Policies: I expect policies to contain at the very least, some form of CLEAR mandate statement(s), a timeline, and funding. There probably should be more and could prompt disads if there isn't, but hey. It's your round.
Values: Sometimes in value rounds there is the WM and then an additional value applied. Sometimes this value applies to both teams, sometimes the affirmative wants to defend that value and expects the negative to bring up their own value. If the value applies ot both teams, the negative needs to have warrant as to why a countervalue is necessary if they want to have one. By warrant, I mean, what is wrong with the original value? I don't think neg is just effortlessly granted a counter value just because. Explain why neg needs a counter value and then provide a better one. However, if aff is expecting neg to bring up there own value, they need to say that.
Splitting the neg: I believe bringing up a ton of new arguments in the second negative speech is incredibly abusive. If you plan on giving the affirmative only their last, short speech to refutue your brand new arguments, continue the old ones, and get to voters, then you have the wrong judge. That said, aff needs to call out this abuse in order for me to vote on it. Why is this abusive? What is this abuse's impact on debate? I especially love when aff preemptively calls it out and says "don't let them bring up a bunch of new arguments" when they had the chance to assert them in the first affirmative constructive.
On pronouns and names: I prefer for students to call each other "the negative", "the affirmative", "The prime minister", "The opposition" etc. I also prefer that the pronoun "they" is used to refer to these positions as opposed to the people themselves or their names. This is because, saying names opens the door to mispronouncing names and it also makes the round so personal-- something about that layer of intimacy whilst engaging in clash makes me uncomfortable. Also, if the debate round gets heated, it feels MUCH more personal when names and pronouns are being used. Speaking of pronouns- using them makes it more likely to misgender someone. So instead, using "they" and refering to your opponent as their position as opposed to their name allows for less unneccessary risk.
Burdens: I think it is aff's job to fulfill the burden of proof and neg's job to fulfill the burden of refutation. If I'm confused in a round as to what is going on, I will vote on who upheld their burden the best.
Liz Fritz - McHenry
n/a