Amrut Chowdhury Paradigm
I debated for 5 years at Texas (Fall 2011 - Spring 2016 ). Now I am pursuing my MA in Comm at Baylor and coaching for them.
- I'm flowing on paper, slow down for theory or framework interps, argument transitions etc.
- Don't be mean to your parter or the other team. Obviously debates can get tense but if things get unreasonable I will intervene and if you don't trust me with that brightline don't pref me.
- Defend what you do, or what you think debate should do
- I place a good deal of weight on evidence quality, but only if they've been adequately explained
I think debate is an activity that provides a lot of different skills and different educational opportunities, and because of this I try not to have my preferences for what debate should be override how I judge debates. I prefer affs that engage the resolution either directly or through creative interpretations, but affs that criticize the resolution externally are fine as long as you defend the choice. Similarly, I prefer line by line, but if you want to forward arguments about a more wholistic form of argument evaluation make sure you start this early in the debate and defend it sufficiently.
A lot of how I view debate was formed by JV Reed, so i'm going to quote parts of his judge philosophy that resonate with me at length:
- Many Aff advantages and many more Neg disadvantages and kritiks are so poorly constructed, with so many missing internal links that they hardly warrant a response by the opposing team. This requires an attention to internal links, source quality, and also the depth of the warrant cited by a given piece of evidence ... I want to be clear about the preferences I have: I do not have a preference for K over policy or vice-versa. I do have a preference for debates where the debaters are working hard to make the most of their evidence. The teams I enjoy judging the most, whether K or Policy, will demonstrate in debates that their knowledge of the [subject] is substantial, and will make “cutting to the chase” their primary argument resolution tactic.
- DA's - it is possible for there to be no risk of a disad. it is possible for you to win uniqueness decisively and there still be no risk of a link. link debates are very important to me. quality of link evidence, qualification of link authors etc is something to be considered. ... disads are little machines with lots of moving parts that all need to be considered in isolation, but also in concert. it is therefore better for you to talk to me in terms of the relationship between the risk of the link and the risk of the impact rather than treating these issues as completely discrete.
- K's - K's need a specific link. K's need examples. K's usually need better application/explanation of evidence more than they need more evidence. I prefer Ks that include a link to the plan. That does not mean that I don't think that reps Ks are illegit, but I do think that reps k's are more persuasive when the impact is explained in relation to the goals of the aff. and the intended projected consequences of the plan. Think "turns solvency" arguments here ... I am more interested in how a given mode of understanding/ideology implicates implementation of the plan, than I am in simplistic root cause (and therefore "turns case") allegations.
This last section is particularly important to me, whether you are debating a plan or an advocacy, make sure that your argument engages the process of the affs mechanism in some capacity.
I don't have any particularly nuanced views about counterplans, and to be honest I doubt I will judge many debates where that becomes relevant. The maxim justify what you do is relevant to every theory/T/Framework debate I evaluate.
Speaker point scale:
29 - 30: Deserves to be in late elims. Has engaged the other teams arguments thoroughly, made strategic choices, and spoken extremly clearly
28.6 - 29: Deserves to clear. Has made strategic choices and spoken relatively clearly
28.0-28.5: On the verge of clearing. Needs more strategic awareness and probably needs more clarity.
27.5 - 28.0: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability. May have dropped key arguments
27.3 - 27.5: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability, Needs to work on filling speech time
25.0 - 27.2: Was emotionally abusive to their partners or other participants in the debate.