Bigman,+Jared

Jared Bigman Associate Director of Forensics Lake Braddock Secondary School Burke, VA

I debated for Lake Braddock for three years in LD with some national circuit experience. This is my second year judging and I have judged well over 100 rounds. In addition to LD, I coach PF, Speech, and Congress.

I decided to bullet this such that when you quickly glance up at the schematic and don't know who I am, you are not subject to reading through several paragraphs to figure me out; that being said, very specific questions will gladly be answered prior to the round.


 * Speed**: I believe I flow fairly well. If you become extremely unclear, I will stop flowing. I will not shout "clear" because, after much discussion on this judging characteristic, I believe it is a form of intervention. If you want to use speed as a strategy, you do so at your own risk. Slowing down so I can hear the author's name and clutch onto something to flow and then blurting through the rest of the actual card and analysis is really not a good way for me to understand your offense.
 * Theory**: I believe theory, when run in an appropriate situation and is well-warranted, is a useful tool in LD debate. I don't enjoy theory ran for the sake of running theory and I don't enjoy fairness/ground as a voter when there clearly is ground. Don't run theory because you're lazy, run theroy because it's necessary. If you don't know what this is, don't even try it. Please. I'm begging you.
 * A priori**: On many resolutions, the AFF has run various a priori arguments that go cold dropped and tell me to vote on them in the IAR because of it. If the argument is well explained and impacted and it was indeed dropped, I will vote off of it in the IAR (I guess the NC should have asked about pre-standards args in CX...) Do I think this is pretty shiesty? Yes. Do I think intervention is necessary in this case? Not normally, but the NEG should try and make a case for it.
 * Rudeness**: I have yet to find a judge that enjoys excessive rudeness in debate. I won't drop you for being rude but I am not afraid to nuke your speaks. I find rudeness unattractive and unnecessary. There is a clear difference between being somewhat aggressive or quite passionate and being flat out rude -- you know it and I know it.
 * Speaker Points:** I typically start around a 27 and go up/down from there. I really like to use overall issue selection and crystallization as ways to gauge speaks. I have been told that I am fairly generous with speaks, so I guess you're in luck.
 * Standards**: To be short, I am not one of those traditional judges that will drop you if you lack a value structure. That being said, I do enjoy seeing values debate and a standard to weigh it and impact to...it just gives me a way to determine the weight of arguments in the round. As a debater, I didn't recognize the importance of standards or invest sufficient time in explaining or using them to win rounds, but I do understand their purpose and hope you best use some mechanism to link your offense to.
 * Cross-X:** Do I always pay attention in CX? Not really. I feel as though it is your job to bring up the offense and my job to make sure no one is lying or being ridiculously rude. I have no problem with you being seated during CX (although my local circuit frowns upon it) as long as both debaters are facing me (I believe this is universally accepted). I am fine with flex prep as long as the tournament itself permits it. Clarification questions during prep time are fine, but be sure not to pry too much or it will reflect negatively on your speaks.
 * Crystallization**: My debaters have told me that I am easily impressed by and enjoy big impacts. Listening to debaters talk all day gets boring. Make my day interesting! This doesn't mean you need to start linking to nuclear war in the middle of the 1AR, but that concentrating on what is important and what will win my ballot for you is something I like to see. For some peculiar reason, I really enjoy seeing rounds where debaters number their impacts or offense in front of me (not necessarily voting issues but just showing a contrast between general offense/impacts) such that I can better flow and understand it. It just makes the round a lot more fluid for you and your opponent to follow and make extensions from. I have a firm belief in judging: this is your round. It is my responsibility to decide who wins, but you make that //much// easier by crystallizing. I will NOT find your offense for you!
 * Caveat:** I will not vote off of an argument or case I do not understand. I can't write a ballot or give an oral critique on something I just don't comprehend. Make things clear. If you see my face wrinkling up when you are hastily extending your Zizek card, invest another 30 seconds in it so you can re-interpret it and make it convincing offense for me.

If you would like to find me at the tournament I would be happy to provide an oral critique or discuss any questions you may have.