College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 04:02:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Judge philsophy for Zach Brown  (Read 1292 times)
zrbrown
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« on: January 26, 2012, 06:05:57 PM »

Since this is my first tournament of the year, I felt it would be useful to include a judge philosophy.

Zachary Brown- Judge Philosophy for 2012

The UMKC tournament will be the first tournament that I have judged on this topic. I debated on the previous Middle East topic (2007-2008) and I have done a deal of personal reading on the area, so Iím familiar with the general literature base. Be sure to key me into whatever key distinction that you are making and explain any unique jargon that you may have as it pertains to this yearís topic.

Iíd generally describe myself as a judge that is concerned with weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the affirmative plan versus a competitive policy option or the status quo. I am receptive to critical arguments and topicality, but do not expect me to be as well versed in the literature or ideology as you are.  I generally evaluate debates in an attempt to ascertain the best truth for the round, so Iím more concerned with that than I am with technical matters in the debate.

Some specific caveats for me:
Iím most receptive to the DA/CP/Case strategy in general. You should probably do more work explaining your uniqueness and link arguments to me as I am relatively unfamiliar with this yearís topic.

I will vote for a well executed kritik, but I am not deep into the literature and I am annoyed by shallowly developed attempts to throw out philosophical buzzwords in an attempt to make an argument. Bottom line is if I canít grasp the philosophical ideology behind your argument, I wonít vote for it. Your best bet to win a kritik in front of me is to be clear in contextualizing the link in specific reference to elements of the 1AC, develop some sort of impact framing claim, and explain to me what your alternative does and how it interacts with the 1AC. My threshold on these issues is higher than my threshold would be on a DA/CP strategy.

I will also be more than willing to vote for topicality. If a team wins a link to a violation and wins a net benefit to their interpretation, then I will generally vote for them on topicality. I have not done any work on this yearís topic, so I have to clearly understand the interpretation as it falls into a broader literature base and a broader picture of how this interpretation would affect the debate community on this given topic. Case lists are especially helpful for me to determine such things as limits and ground. I feel that the 1AC advocacy should be rooted in the topic somehow, and that the resolution should be the focal point of the discussion.

In terms of decorum, I enjoy debates the most when the debaters are there to have fun and to relax a bit. I understand that you are there to win, and I expect you to do whatever it takes to win but things like speaker points and this particular judgeís value to life are greatly increased when debaters are more laid back and friendly.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!