I did LD for 4 years and mustered about 200 rounds.
Feel free to email me if your questions reach beyond our time after the round!
Also please for the love of god add me to the e-mail chain
Speaks are based on how compelling and fluid your speaking was. The way you speak is totally irrelevant to my decision.
I assess the round by picking a winning framework and then applying that framework to the contention level debate. Framework itself does not impact my decision. I evaluate impacts through the "lens" of a criterion. Evidence does not Trump analytics. I find that often analytics can take out most evidence.
a 20 second observation establishing an unwarranted philosophical weighing mechanism will not be evaluated. I'll weigh using the same loose notion of consequentialism most people use in day to day policy conversations. Give me good, analytical debate and I'll evaluate you accordingly.
I had a stint on the circuit my junior year and attended GDS a few years back. I'm as fluent in circuit language and argumentation as I am with traditional, but at some point I've debated against most kinds of positions. Policy is the one I'm most familiar with and feel the most comfortable weighing.
Here's my judging philosophy and my specific way of evaluating rounds:
I try to be tab. I will probably fail. To minimize the chance that you misunderstand or interpret the way I judge, refer to the bit below
1. Establish a weighing mechanism
Let's say that an affirmative criterion, a refutation to a negative Methodology K, and an affirmative T shell are the 3 arguments that the affirmative goes for in the 2AR. If I decide that the Methodology K is true, I no longer care about the criterion because it exists on a "lower" level of the debate. That being said, if I don't buy the K or the T shell, all I have left is the criterion and I will evaluate that. I will essentially start at the top and work my way down eventually stopping where I feel a side has distinguished themselves and proven an argument to be true.
2. Evaluate the round under said weighing mechanism
I will weigh and compare the impacts of the round under the established weighing mechanism. If I've decided that the framing of the T shell is the most important (lets say it emphasized fairness in the debate round) I no longer concern myself with the impacts of the criterion or the methodology K because they are irrelevant under the weighing mechanism. That being said, if you made a compelling argument that the impacts of the K are relevant under the T shell, I would absolutely weigh them
3. Tech > Truth with gut check unless compelled otherwise
If your argument is racist, it will fail the gut-check
If it's just stupid and your opponent doesn't have the sense to pick it apart, I will absolutely evaluate it
I will not evaluate unwarranted arguments. If you don't explain it, I don't particularly care if your opponent drops it. Be wary of this if you like to run tricks cases. A one sentence justification is fine if you give me a warrant, just make sure its there!
4. Speed is fine
Put a speech doc in front of my and I'll manage. Don't concern yourself with it unless I don't have anything to follow you with.
If you'll notice, my means of assessing both traditional and circuit boils down to the same principle. Give me a weighing mechanism and tell me how the impacts "weigh" under it. You will have no trouble if you do that