Meyer.+David

Judging Paradigm – David Meyer Chaplain, US Army Judging in my 4th year


 * Paradigm. ** I am a tabula rosa judge. Obviously I have my opinions on a topic, however I will come to each debate looking at the merits of the arguments. I listen to and evaluate each debater on the merits of their case and their refutation of their opponents case


 * Standards. **
 * I like to hear established **burdens, values and value criterion**. In the best rounds, burdens are agreed upon by both debaters.
 * Debaters should uphold their values. If values are the same, one that convinces that it best upholds and applies to resolution wins. Value criterion comes into play to measure value especially if both sides have the same value.
 * There has to be **clash.** The best arguments are the ones found to be the most logically compelling. The best debater wins. This is not an IE event. You don't have to be the best orator to win, but it does make the debate more interesting.
 * **Noninterventionist**--if a debater says something I know is wrong, BUT the opponent doesn't know it, and concedes it, I will not let myself or my brain intervene and give the point to the opponent who misguidedly conceded it. Likewise, if I hear a contention and can think of a great argument against it, but the opponent comes up with a pretty lousy argument, I have to follow what is actually said rather than what should have been said--nonintervention as it should be by all judges.
 * **Drops** happen--not so much in varsity as with novice--but I do realize that it is difficult to address every point in limited time especially in the 1AR. Group points together, but address each argument. If a point comes back up later in the debate that is OK, but by not addressing it initially it is difficult to recover the win on that point.
 * The end of the 2NR and the 2AR should be **prioritization** of the arguments and clarification of the main issues of the round. This is where the burden comes in. The 2-3 well developed arguments should be explained in terms of how they help you meet your burden. I am much more likely to vote on **substantive issues** anyway.
 * **Crystallization points, voting issues**, are appreciated, but **DO NOT power through the line-by-line at the end of the round.**
 * **Ad hoc voting issues:** if during cross both debaters agree that whoever wins this or that specific point wins, it is perfectly acceptable in LD and clarifies my job as a judge. I will have to give the round to whomever does best what the two debaters agreed to have done.
 * **Bottom line**: the side who makes the best argument and convinces me thusly wins.


 * Theory. ** Engage in debate on the actual topic.e.g. I don't want to hear that juries ought to nullify because cats & dogs (felines & canines) can't speak for themselves. If I’m not flowing, you should probably be explaining. I prefer effective analysis over preponderance of evidence. Use evidence, of course, but explain the impact, don't just throw cards out there without explaining what they mean or how they effect your point. Just because you threw a card does NOT mean your point stands. Why is that card important to your argument and how is the quality of your source greater than the one of you opponent who had a card saying the exact opposite.


 * Spread. ** I am not a fan of spreading, however I understand that at the collegiate level that is a part of the game. If you are going to do it, I need to understand it. If I cannot understand a point, it is not a point and does not have any part of the debate. I will make a valiant attempt, however if I cannot follow your case, I cannot judge it. Spreading is great if you are looking for a career reading drug or automobile disclaimers on TV. Building a well articulated argument and presenting it in a convincing way will get you to the top in just about any career field.

**Speaking**. While I understand the difference between debate and IE, I fully expect you to be a reasonably articulate speaker. Particularly the first two speeches should be presented as the prepared speeches they are. I fully understand that debate is about the arguments, your speaking ability has a great deal to do with the power of your arguments and it will affect your speaker points (see below). However, when the tournament allows, I have no issues with low speaker point debate wins. If the better speaker does not make the better argument they will not win the debate. The debate is on the merits of the arguments.


 * Speaker Points. ** I enjoy judging debate. You will receive from me an honest critique of things you did well and areas you can improve. You will typically receive 26-30 points.

Show respect to your opponent and for the activity. Though my decision will be based solely on the arguments and evidence presented, professional decorum is expected. This includes staying away from inflammatory terms.