Courtney Roberts Paradigm

Last changed 24 January 2016 6:46 PM EST

I was a speechie in high school (extempt and impromptu) because I thought debate was too much work (It was.). But, now that I am a parent and develop arguments for a living, I love debate and have been judging it for six years, including LD.
- I flow pretty well and vote off the flow.
- I prefer philosophical frameworks and developed, positional debating; however, I cannot flow dense philosophy at top speed. Be articulate, slow down and inflect for analytics, author names, and important arguments. - I'll say 'clear' or 'slow' if I'm not able to understand. You can keep mumbling or going super fast, but if I don't understand it, I won't be able to include it in the flow. 
- I will ignore arguments with significantly new implications or components in a final speech.
- Extensions need to be impacted well and explained if you're doing any comparison, but beyond that I have a low threshold for extension of conceded arguments. - I read all the crit theory literature when I was in grad school in the 90s. I prefer not to hear critical or performance style cases, but will vote for them if won fairly. 
- Don't read theory, answer arguments. I'm fine with definitions debate but will re-evaluate aff offense under any interpretations advanced. I find that most theoretical arguments (e.g. education claims) can be phrased as responses indicting the truth of any offending arguments. Make those arguments.
- The only extinction impact is global warming. Don't read contrived extinction scenarios in front of me.
- A note about evidence ethics: I sometimes call for cards after the round -- and I discount evidence that is out of context so don't read miscut evidence in front of me. I won't vote for anything I don't understand in the first speech it's articulated. I follow tournament rules regarding evidence ethics challenges.
- I am fine with some parameterization, however, I believe that you can't parametrize the topic to the extent that the aff advocacy no longer logically entails the resolution. e.g. on the 2016 Jan-Feb topic, it doesn't affirm to say we should ban one particular handgun.

Speaks are based on:
- Argument quality and development
- Effective communication and delivery
- Being civil

Don't take yourself too seriously. Debate is a rigorous competition, but don't lose your humanity. Have fun

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 ALD 6 ARL South Lakes DS Thomas Jefferson YC Aff Aff 2-0
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 ALD 5 ARL Thomas Jefferson PM Woodgrove RK Aff Aff 2-0
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 JVLD 4 JLD Stone Ridge CD Thomas Jefferson SB Neg
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 JVLD 4 JLD Chantilly SA Thomas Jefferson SM Aff
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 ALD 3 ARL Lake Braddock TB Thomas Jefferson RK Neg
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 ALD 3 ARL McLean CS Thomas Jefferson MD Aff Aff 2-0
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 ALD 2 ARL Centreville AL Rock Ridge RB Aff Aff 2-0
WACFL LD and Policy Metrofinals HS 2017-03-03 ALD 2 ARL Oakton MS Thomas Jefferson AS Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 LD R4 Riverside AH Houston Memorial PK Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 LD R3 James Logan MO Christopher Columbus JN Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 LD R3 North Atlanta AM NSU University KC Neg