Swallow,+Jason

I judge for Clark High School.

High school policy debate, 3 years. College Parliamentary debate (Berkeley), 2 years Philosophy and Rhetoric double major at Berkeley. J.D. NYU.
 * Judging Experience ** : 4 Years judging LD and PF

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LD%20Baldwin%20LD%201-03.pdf
 * Overview ** : As LD is a moral debate, I believe the issues should be discussed in very broad terms. My judging will focus upon how you explain your value, how you tie it to the resolution, and the arguments you make against your opponents value/case. Generally speaking I think this article is entirely correct:


 * Plans:** I well absolutely accept a case which offers some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully encapsulates the resolution. That being said, I see LD as being very different from Policy or PF in that I am not a fan of cases with very specific and narrow plans. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with some idea the other side never thought of, not ok.


 * Kritik:** I'll accept them.


 * Performance Debate:** Thus far I have not heard a good prima facie reason why I should vote for one of these. I am not saying I would never vote for one, just that I don't see why I should and would need someone to make a good case for it.


 * Values/ Criteria: **I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. "Morality" is useless unless you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. Likewise utilitarianism is problematic if you cannot give me some sense of what is being added up.


 * Common Knowledge ** : It is perfectly acceptable for a debater to make a point and say the facts that support it are "common knowledge" if it is actually something that is commonly known. Debaters are allowed to disagree over what is or is not common knowledge, but I do not require that debaters have cards for every possible argument that could be made as I think debate should be fluid and it is impossible to predict every course an argument can take.

However; while common knowledge arguments are acceptable, they are not ideal, and having the factual information with you is always better.


 * Expert Opinion ** : When it comes to morality opinions I don't think there is such a thing as an 'expert' opinion. There are informed opinions, but I do not think anyone has an upper hand when it comes to stating moral principles. I think debaters should be able to articulate their own ethical viewpoints, but if they wish to use another source that is their option, I neither encourage nor discourage that approach.

As an example: If debater A says "I think the death penalty is just" and debater B says "John Doe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Ethics at Yale, says the death penalty is unjust" I would have the debaters tied as neither has given reason for why or why not it is just. I am going to judge the quality of your argument, not who is making it.


 * Speed ** : My background is mostly in progressive parli debate. Which means that while I can handle whatever kind of argument you want to present, I do not have much background in speed. I'm not saying you need to read like an oratory, but if you are spewing a ton of arguments or reading a card so fast I cannot follow it, your points may not end up on my flow. And you probably won't know which ones you failed to get me to write down.


 * Questions/Etiquette ** :Whoever is asking questions during cross-ex may interrupt the person answering if they think they are taking too long or avoiding the topic and I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification ('are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention', 'how do you define greatly'', for example) and may not respond with substantive questions. Also, "are you aware (insert fact you want to state)?" is not a question. If you are not asking questions, I am not paying attention.