2016 Crestian Classic Policy Debate Tournament
2016 — FL/US
Novice Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAmit Bindra's Judge Philosophy
Below are some of my thoughts on debate. However, since 2009, I have (a) cut maybe two debate cards, and (b) only judged at CDL or local, tournaments in the Chicagoland area.
I debated for 2.5 years at Michigan State in college (2005-07, 2009), and for 4 years at Brookfield Central High School (2001-05). I cleared at the NDT twice in college (07, 09), and the TOC in high school (05). However, I'm pretty removed from debate right now.
During my debate career, I was fairly policy oriented. I will do the best that I can to conform to the debaters and their preferences, but my knowledge level for critical and performance based debates is low. My feedback for policy oriented rounds will also be more productive for the debaters.
Finally, I'm still figuring out how to properly award speaker points, especially now that the norm involves giving out tenths of a speaker point. So I apologize in advance.
Please feel free to email me after rounds if you have additional questions.
Cross-Examination
I flow CX, and the best debaters make this the most important speech. I think a lot of teams make good connections in CX, but fail to apply these connections to the actual round.
Blippy Arguments
I am incredibly unlikely to vote for unsubstantiated claims that the other team allegedly did not answer. I will give the rebuttals a lot of leeway to respond to "they dropped x is a voting issue." Especially when "x" is barely an argument. See most CP theory arguments.
Topicality
I typically vote for the "best interpretation" for debate. Generally, that means some sort of offense/defense paradigm. I do not generally like just defensive arguments. An interpretation coupled with some reasonability arguments could get my vote for the affirmative.
Theory
I lean negative on almost all theory questions, and I am incredibly unlikely to vote affirmative on conditionality bad, no neg fiat, etc. At the same time, this doesn't mean the affirmative shouldn't make these arguments, or that the negative can concede these arguments. There are strategic benefits from a time stand point for the affirmative. But if the 2ar is going for conditionality bad, and the 2nr made some arguments in response, I am likely voting negative pretty quickly.
Disads/CPs
These are the debates I prefer, and debates I'm probably the most qualified to judge. I fall into the "offense/defense" category of judging. I generally think there is a risk of the disadvantage, though it might be very small. I have no problem if the negative reads multiple conditional frameworks or counterplans.
Critiques/Performance/Framework
This definitely isn't my forte - I don't know too much about the literature (surprisingly, I don't spend my free time reading Baudrillard and Zizek).
At the same time, I think "policy oriented" teams do a poor job responding to criticisms or performance arguments. I am unlikely to vote for framework in these debates, mostly because I think these debates are rarely nuanced.
For the most part, I'm probably closer to the middle regarding non-plan/performance debates than one would guess given my debate background (i.e. I vote for the team running the performance - even when not defending the plan - about half the time). However, I'm not well-educated on these debates, so I have the potential to make errors in judgment.
Also, I truly do not understand the value of reading a former debater's or current coach's thoughts on framework. I really don't understand how attaching the evidence to a debater/coach's name adds any credibility to the evidence.
Other
I reward teams with better speaker points for not wasting my time when they do not need to. For example, if you are in a non-competitive round, you are not required to use all of your prep time. Obviously, make you sure you are able to win the round. But I will reward higher speaker points for being considerate of my time.
Judge Philosophy: Rodrigo Quirch – Christopher Columbus High School/G. Holmes Braddock Senior High School, Miami, FL
I debated policy in High School at Christopher Columbus High School, and have been coaching and judging the Florida circuit since graduating in 2011. I also did parli debate in college.
I need to be able to understand you, and usually I can, just make sure you dont start a speech at a million miles an hour and instead quickly accelerate from a slower pace instead. I also need to be able to distinguish tags from cards in your speaking, That will just make both our lives better.
Im ok with anything really, just make sure the work is being done. With theory I want a good abuse story for me to pull the trigger.
Im also cool with performance arguments, and expirience or identity arguments, just do them well like any other argument.
To win with me as a judge you should tell me what I should be voting on and why, ie how those specific arguments o/w others, how I should be looking at the round, how my ballot functions. Essentially do the work for me.
LD - I guess you can call me a flow judge. I accept most "progressive" arguments, just the ones that make sense. I dont really like theory in LD, its not really run effectively, or well for that matter, but if you have to you have to. I dont really like skepticism. Remember that im a policy judge, thats how my brain works, so take that for how to win my ballot.
If you have any other questions you can ask me pre round or at RodrigoJQuirch@gmail.com