Wood,+Caleb

Caleb T Wood University of North Texas Communication Studies Philosophy Email me

First off let me make this argument: Debate and performance should be both a educational experience and an enjoyable one. I love debate and performance and believe it is great for having students become an active part of the education system. In this regard debate and performance is important in that it allows students to learn about not only main idea's but to discover and interact with their ethics, worldviews, ideas, and so on. On top of this debate and performance is plain out and out fun and enjoyable. I believe it is important for competitors to get both sides of this. I always do my best to insure this. So have fun and engage yourself and others!
 * Introduction**

I am a current student of the University of North Texas as a Communication Studies major with a focus in Performance Studies and a Philosophy minor with a focus in Environmental and Ethical Philosophy. I often come off as a very stern guy when on paper and this is true in the regard that I always am a stickler for rules but, I am a nice guy. Promise. I judge because I love it. I am always willing to answer questions and help where I can. I am also a stickler for being as fair and unbiased as possible. Judges should not allow their personal feelings to get in the way of their judgments. In my opinion debate and performance should be a place for the free exchange of ideas and growth of each student while they have fun.
 * About me**


 * Rules and other stuff**
 * 1) When it comes to any debate or event first and foremost I believe that a Judge's primary responsibility is in being as unbiased as possible and to follow all rules and procedures perfectly. I will uphold all rules and regulations to insure a fair debate and will dock competitors for the violation of said rules and regulations.
 * 2) When it comes to timing I encourage competitors to have timers with them but, I will always keep an "Official" time. When time is called I expect competitors to stop, not at the end of their idea, not at then end of their sentence, but at the end of their word. (When Applicable)
 * 3) On the note of timers, competitors utilizing electronic devices that also provide other services are expected to disable these other services (i.e. a cell phone must not only be put on silent but must not have any incoming text, calls, alerts, alarms and etc). Any disturbance from electronic devices will cause competitors to be docked.
 * 4) I will not accept arguments within the debate over rules, regulations, or framework. They do not have any relevancy on the debate at hand and will only use up competitor's time. I as a judge know the rules and do not need another competitor to tell me when someone violates them. Focus on your arguments and counter-arguments.
 * 5) See below

While not usually against rules or regulations I do __//highly//__ discourage the use. The reasoning behind this is due to: I will not dock competitors who do spread but warn that I will not see spreading as an excuse for not being comprehensible or not making strong arguments.
 * A note on spreading**
 * A: Spreading often has the competitor repeating, stumbling, and getting lost in her/his arguments,
 * B: Spreading, whether or not it is comprehensible or not, tends to cause arguments to lose their power and effect and can be defeated from a none spreading argument,
 * C: Spreading serves no realistic purpose. I say this in that there is no reason to spread. A very powerful argument can be made without having to spread at all. Most competitors who spread are giving out fluff and/or are not linking arguments and the material they are spreading.

Resolutions are chosen for a reason and while the resolution is the base for the debate, the resolution is not up for debate. Same goes for the rules and regulations of the tournament. Both sides of the resolution have the same amount of burden to prove. Do not argue framework.
 * Resolutions**

Creating an argument is 50% of the battle in my opinion. I will accept any argument that is not a fallacy and follows the proper logical structure. I expect competitors to utilize claims to back up their value statements about the resolution and then to use warrants to connect the claims with support. Support include data, statistics, research, expert testimony and etc. Data must be valid and relevant. Expert testimony I expect to be backed up with other more hard case data. Claims, warrants, and data can not stand alone and a argument can not be complete without all of the above. I will accept (and do encourage) support that is brought from competitor's in-depth research on top of and outside of what is in the "cards". Do all this is strengthen your argument.
 * Arguments 50%**

Being able to create a counter-argument and being able to take apart your oppositions arguments is another 50% of the battle in my opinion. Competitors should try to predict their oppositions arguments and be pre-prepared for the possibility of arguments in order to better defeat them. While this is not required it will assist you and possibly give you the upper-hand. If you can not create a stronger argument than your opposition then you can always make theirs weaker. A combination of both strengthening your argument and weakening your opposition is extremely effective.
 * Counter-Arguments 50%**

I will under no circumstances accept being unprofessional and will dock competitors for such. No matter how passionate you are or how in-depth a debate gets, being unprofessional is not acceptable. This goes for competitor's non-verbals and word choices. Such phrases as "This will screw you over" or sighing, rolling eyes and other obvious reactions to competitors speeches will not be accepted.
 * Professionalism**

During cross-examination, time is owned by the person asking questions. Questioner's have every right to cut off the person answering for the sake of time if done respectfully. Answerer's never have the right to chose when they will stop answering. This take's up the questioners time and is not fair.
 * Cross-examination**

I do hope that every competitor has a great time. All I ask is that basic rules and logic be followed in order to allow the debates and performances to be as unbiased as possible. I am always available for questioning and discussion on these matters. I will always ask if competitors have questions before the round and will remind them of rules and philosophy's of mine I believe they should know.
 * Conclusion**

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to email me through this: My Wikispace Profile

Texas Forensics Association [|National Forensics Association] [|judging philosophy.docx]