Missing philosophies

JT Seymore Philosophy 

My name is J.T. Seymore, a former Texas Tech debater who now coaches at a high school here in Lubbock. I had a fair amount of success while debate. I won’t go into details, but be assured that I have debated at the highest level and have beaten, been coached by, and remain actively in touch with some of the best minds this activity has ever seen. So if you haven’t heard of me, don’t worry about getting some judge who doesn’t know a T from a K…although there are a few good stories of some of my mishaps. I say all that to say this…I am an experienced judge who knows parli debate very well, but I have been out of the activity for close to five (Jesus…) years. I am going to give you a run down of my judging philosophy, but the best thing to do would be to make any argument as clear and warranted as possible. I vote where I am told to vote, and I vote for the argument that is best defended and impacted out…simple as that.

First and foremost, be good people before being good debaters. There is no faster path to bad speaks than to be rude to your opponent. There is a difference between being passionate and being a jerk, and it is very clear when that line is breached.

Speed: I am cool with it, but keep in mind that I don’t flow spreading every weekend now. I ask that you slow down a tad for me. I can hear what you’re saying, but my hand is slower than my ears. Also, there is nothing worse than someone who thinks they are incredibly fast but sound like garbage. I will use a verbal “clear” if I am losing what you are saying for any reason. This is not to disrupt your speech, quite the opposite actually.

Theory: I love theory debates when used properly. I absolutely hate them when they are poorly executed. I don’t think you necessarily have to “prove abuse” (it certainly helps), but there needs to be an impact of sorts. In other words, I am not going to vote on a T just because they don’t meet your definition. Standards and voters have to be warranted and strong for me to pull the trigger, and I am going to place a lot of scrutiny on the shell.

DA/CP: Love them...yes please.

K: I am cool with K’s, having ran a lot of them myself. I will say two things about judging them. First, don’t assume I know the literature and just name drop at me. Names do not equal a warrant. Explain the thought process behind your argument and be thorough in your link descriptions. Second, I really can’t stand the teams that try to force me into voting for or against actual people. In other words, I believe each debate happens in a vacuum, and my vote nor your opponent’s arguments make us complacent in the very real atrocities in this world. I find it incredibly problematic when K’s use the debaters and judges in the room as weighing mechanisms. Run what you want, but alternatives have to have some type of applicable change to the world or some type of tangible action. Instead of saying “reject this” try saying “join this movement.” If you can’t do these things, I don’t think your K is for me. I’ll listen to anything, but keep all of this in mind.