DuPont,+Nathan

Nathan DuPont Director of Debate at Anderson High School.

College: Trinity University '13 Updated: 10-9-15

__**LD Debate Philosophy:**__ I would look over my CX philosophy as well because it most likely has some key pieces of information that might benefit you if I am judging your debate. Over the past two years I have judged considerably more LD rounds than policy rounds, but you will still want to take some time to make sure I clearly understand any LD specific jargon or if something is a norm within LD.

Generally as a judge I am going to attempt evaluate the round based solely on the arguments that I have written down on my flow. While I like to believe I have a pretty decent flow I am sure that it is not perfect, so make sure to slow down on highly technical portions of the debate (like theory or if you have a long list of analytical standards to support your role of the ballot).

Kritiks -- If you decide to read a kritik you should make sure that you have a specific link to the aff's advocacy (or at the very least the framing of the resolution). It will benefit you greatly if you clearly establish either how your kritik functions under your opponents framework for evaluating the round, or to tell me why your kritik is a prior issue to the affirmative case. If you fail to contextualize your criticism in the context of the affirmative case you will be hard pressed to win my ballot.

Disads -- I love a great disad/case or disad/counterplan debate.

Theory -- If your A strat going into the tournament is theory I am probably not the best judge for you. If you decide to run theory make sure that you have a clear interpretation (and counter-interpretation) that explains how your standards/impacts create a better world of debate. I find theory arguments that extend the discussion beyond just this particular debate round to be more persuasive than ones that simply talk about this one particular instance of abuse, but am easily persuaded that instances of abuse or fairness outweigh longterm educational gains. If you believe that your theory argument is a reason that I should reject the debater and not just the argument you must clearly impact your argument and explain why that is the case.

Speaker Points - As I have been judging more LD over the past two years I have realized that the average/norm for speaker points in LD is slightly higher than CX. Thus I have adjusted my normal speaker point range when judging LD to more accurately reflect the norms within the LD community.

Other - If you are speaking off your computer you must flash or e-mail the cards you are reading to your opponent before the round. Everything you read should be in one document. I don't take flashing as prep unless it is clear you are trying to steal prep time or are not even trying to flash quickly.

Please let me know before the round if you have any questions about my philosophy.

__**CX Debate Philosophy:**__ General: Overall I think that debaters should always strive to have fun in debates and should read the arguments that they feel most comfortable reading. Having me in the back of the room should not make you feel like you should read a certain argument. I encourage teams that create well-rounded and specific strategies to affs that they are debating (instead of the a slew of generic disads and kritiks) and I will probably enjoy these debates the most.

That being said here are the specifics:

T – I will default to competing interpretations if not told how to evaluate the debate, however this doesn’t mean I wont evaluate reasonability. I often find debates over limits more convincing than those over ground, especially if they are centered on predictability.

Theory – If you are going for a theory argument you should have a clearly explained interpretation of what your argument is. While my flow isn’t bad, you will probably want to slow down a little on theory or I wont be able to get it all down. Generally I think conditionality and pics are good but I can be convinced otherwise.

Kritiks – I think a crucial and often-underdeveloped portion of kritik debates is what the world of the alternative looks like. Permutations are fun but I find that some affirmative teams tend to morph their perms throughout the debate and if the permutation explanation changes drastically from the 1AR to the 2AR I will be very wary of voting on it. Discussions of the kritik should occur within the specific context of this debate round and the affirmative case, if you fail to discuss how your kritik links or functions within the framework of the round you will most likely lose.

Disads – Well debated topic specific disads can often lead to very exciting and educational debates. I like most politics debates as long as both teams decide to engage the warrants of the other teams cards instead of just reading 50 new uniqueness cards.

Counterplans – I enjoy good specific counterplans. If the debate is going to come down to the theoretical legitimacy of the counterplan make sure to be very clear on what your interpretation is/ why you think the counterplan is/isn’t abusive. I enjoy case specific PICs that have good solvency evidence.

Cross-x – Use your cross-x time wisely. A strategic cross-x can often change the entire debate and will probably help your speaker points.

If you have any other questions please ask.