Craig Gardner Paradigm

Last changed 1/12 11:15A MDT

I have long experience in formal and informal speech and debate events. I debated in high school and college. I teach critical thinking and ethics at university. Perhaps you could say that I'm a traditional judge. As such, I'm very objective and will judge impartially, based solely on the merits of the debate. I generally have the following judging philosophy for Policy (CX):

Framework - Framework is necessary. Tell me where you're going and how you're going to get there. If no framework is provided, I'm left to making up my own mind what you're arguing. Impact calculus is crucial, because if the "problem" has no measurable impact, your policy is not necessary.

Topicality - For me, this is the foundation of Policy Debate. Establish, and root in the topic. Make sure all arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If your plan does not address the resolution, that's bad news for your case.

Solvency - Did I just say that "Topicality" is key? Okay, well, honestly, Solvency is the most important. You must convince me that your approach will effectively resolve a real problem. And when I say "resolve," I mean that real people are really affected.

Speed - I have no problem with your speed as long as you slow down a bit on identifying tags/authors for signposts. Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.

DAs - Go for it, as long as your disadvantages are specific and topical. Nothing is worse than vague generalities.

Ks - Not a fan. But give it a go if that's your thing.

CX - Although I know other judges ignore and/or hate cross examination, I actually prefer it. A good CX demonstrates an intent to understand the opponent's point of view. Engage (don't accuse) in CX, and seek to understand. Understanding your opponent's position makes for a far more compelling debate.

Critique - I feel it's entirely appropriate to question the resolution itself. Just be sure that you can substantiate (with evidence) your critique of the resolution. The people who create resolutions are pretty smart folks, too, and the resolution deserves a fair shake.

Don't Drop Arguments - You drop, you lose.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence - But reason, argumentation, and passion employing the evidence (quality) is far superior to a bucket-full of evidence (quantity). Substantiate all arguments with evidence.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - balance. Aristotle's views have persisted for 2500 years for a very good reason.

Off-time roadmap - No. Just. No. (Is this a thing in Policy?? It's a terribly annoying thing in other events.)

Bottom Line:

No Ad Hominem attacks; you must treat your opponent(s) with the utmost respect and civility, or I will penalize you. Be nice. Argue the issues, not the opponent. Speak plainly and clearly -- speed is fine, but not at the expense of understanding. I can easily see through "snow jobs"; I understand the reality of you reading a position that was originally written by someone else, but if you haven't bothered to study and understand the issue(s), the arguments, and case for yourself, you will not win and you're wasting everyone's time.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Westlake Thunderdome Virtual Invitational 10/23/2020 OLD R2 MapMou 1100 Alta Reese Reynolds Aff
Westlake Thunderdome Virtual Invitational 10/23/2020 NLD R2 Ogden 601 Farmto 601 Aff
Westlake Thunderdome Virtual Invitational 10/23/2020 NLD R1 ProHal 600 Bright 602 Aff
Westlake Thunderdome Virtual Invitational 10/23/2020 NLD R1 Farmto 600 Clearf 602 Aff
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R5 Skylin Pham & Zhang ParCit Kanarowski & Stampfli Neg
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R3 Farmto Tracy & NeVille RowHal Dau & Park Aff
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R2 Skylin Simpson & Feinauer ProHal Skeels & Kalmar Aff
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R1 Juab Esplin & Tapusoa ProHal Werts & Seo Aff
Copper Classic 1/18/2019 OCX R6 Logan DJ Hillcrest RM Aff
Copper Classic 1/18/2019 OCX R5 Green Canyon OA Roy NH Neg
Copper Classic 1/18/2019 OCX R4 Northridge SG Hunter LD Aff
Copper Classic 1/18/2019 OCX R3 Logan DO East PG Aff
Copper Classic 1/18/2019 OCX R2 Green Canyon GW Lone Peak AL Aff
Copper Classic 1/18/2019 OCX R1 SLC West GR Hunter FC Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NPF R2 Jordan Clark & Faraji Taylor Roper & Kirby Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NLD R1 SpaFor Aidan Sanchez Rivert Jarom Thompson Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NLD R1 Cyprus Caeden Smith WesHS Keira Hamlet Neg
Sundance District Tournament 3/2/2018 LD R7 2011 2019 Aff Aff on a 2-1
Sundance District Tournament 3/2/2018 LD R6 2011 2018 Neg Aff on a 2-1
Sundance District Tournament 3/2/2018 LD R5 2018 2021 Aff
Sundance District Tournament 3/2/2018 LD R4 2003 2019 Neg
Sundance District Tournament 3/2/2018 LD R3 2020 2000 Neg
Sundance District Tournament 3/2/2018 PF R2 3017 3008 Neg
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/26/2018 PFD Quarte Ridgel Cheney & Giddings WooCro Jones & Hall Neg Neg on a 3-0
Red Rock Classic 12/15/2017 PF R2 AA Corbin & Thomas AC Harrington & Berger Aff
Red Rock Classic 12/15/2017 PF R2 AS Christensen & Mulford AK Bate & Bird Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VPF R5 Tooele Sablan & Miles Skylin Tran & Ragula Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VLD R4 GraCou Aidan Guzman-Newton KarG. Elijah Clark Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VLD R3 SpaFor Karl Boyack Kearns Daniel Golsan Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VPF R1 ParCit Serr & Martinova RowHal Baughman & Alsolaiman Aff