Last changed on
Mon November 5, 2018 at 12:52 PM PDT
TL;DR: Experience is Parli & CX, 1 yr camp, 1 yr judging ; Tell us how arguments synergize ; Theory should inform the resolution ; Be explicit w/ K's ; Voters.
---
My HS-debate background includes two years of CX, one summer at WNDI, and two years of Parli. Recent graduate of the UO. I have about one year of judging experience, including some at the national circuit. Although I strive to be a flow judge, intervention can't be completely eliminated. I like science, so it might be harder to remain impartial to scientific [in]accuracy in particular.
Ultimately, I look for coherence in a case -- that is, a strong logical scaffolding, cognizance of the assumptions behind each of the arguments, and congruence between them. The whole of the arguments ought to be greater than the sum of their parts. This means in practice explaining how case, the CP and theory all work together. This also means acknowledging the premises behind the opponent's case.
*The Voters speech is the one I pay the closest attention too, as it helps me from getting bogged down in the round's minutia.
--T's are fine only if you contextualize your interpretation in light of the round.
--Speed is fine, but please articulate.
--CP's are fine.
--No new arguments in rebuttals.
--The more terminal and apocalyptic your link scenario, the better grounded your brink analysis should be.
As for theory, I am conversant, but not fluent, in CX-style kritiks and other theory. More than happy to judge an abstract round, just be explicit with the debate technicalities. ( In the words of middle-school math class: "Show your work." ) Strive to use philosophic/theoretical reasoning as a lens through which to view the resolution/debate, rather than as a stock contention.
Feel free to ask any clarifying questions.