Selegzi,+Noel

Affiliated Schools: Regis High School (alumnus), Hunter College High School (coach) Formats: Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum (I prefer judging the latter)

I am not a //tabula rasa// judge: I do not check common sense at the door when I enter a debate round as a judge. This does not mean I decide based on my personal biases or bring knowledge into the round that I don't expect the debaters to have; nor do I vote on any issue not raised that were not raised by the debaters themselves. However, strong well thought out arguments, when supported with empirical evidence when such a warrant is needed, are likely to sway me. I do not put much weight, particularly when judging values debates, to evidence by authority. A claim isn't true because Kant or Foucault says it's true and am not particularly interested in philosophical frameworks that have little or nothing to do with the debate topic.

Though I can follow a spread debate, I don't enjoy doing it. I prefer quality to quantity when it comes to arguments, and I will not decide a round on a sound bite. You will notice that I generally take very few notes during the round and just write onto the ballot. This doesn't mean I'm not following all that's being said. I find that the more notes I take the less I am able to listen to what is being said. My memory, though not perfect, is well trained enough to let me recall what was said to me over a forty-five minute period. I do not see the point of trying to write a transcript of a round rather than listening carefully and thinking critically about what is being said.

I generally find "kritiks" tedious and have never understood what was wrong with the proper spelling of the word "critique." I prefer cases that are tightly linked to the topic and don't have a lot of patience for debaters who'd prefer to use the round as a soapbox to espouse the views of theorists whose views have been fed to institute trained debaters like pablum. That said, I have had to vote for a "kritik" when the opposition was caught like a deer in the headlights.

I also find debates that focus on issues not inherent to the topic exceptionally dull. Even poorly worded debate topics usually leave room for an intelligent and informed discussion of some important social, political or philosophical issue. Debates that focus on debate itself, its theory or practice, I find about as difficult to sit through as a forty five minutes of Rush Limbaugh or Lou Dobbs Tonight. If a tournament were to choose a debate topic about debate itself, then I would know enough not to enter the judging pool. I am almost always likely to vote on issues relating to the topic and if you find me nodding off rounds focused on debate theory it's only because unlike Mr. Limbaugh I have not been improperly medicated.

I am also not likely to be persuaded by store bought arguments or analysis. Victory in brief cannot be bought. The quality of the material offered for sale is uniformly pretty low and debaters would be better off doing their own research and coming up with their own ideas. I will not drop someone because I recognize an argument round as coming from an online evidence mill, but since these mills produce such poor quality work I recommend debaters not waste their time or money running them. Smart, original, and topical argument win. Admittedly, at many national circuit tournaments, where the judging pool is too often filled with the same coaches and judges who are paid by the for profits trying to convince unsuspecting high school students that for a few sheqels they can buy the road map to debate sucess, parrotting the content of briefs might not be a bad strategy. However, for those who think that the key to success can be found in a store bought, might I interest you in a lightly traversed but historic bridge that connects the isle of Manhattan with the borrough of Brooklyn? .