Barsan,+Andi

LD Judging Philosophy – Andi Barsan affiliation: Bellarmine

I did Policy, LD, and Extemp in high school, coaching and Parli in undergrad, and appellate moot court in law school.


 * Intervention **
 * In a clean round, I am denied the chance or need to determine a judging paradigm (I’m “tab”) because debaters skillfully manage my reasoning, attention, and impressions.
 * In a typical round, I’m left to // look for an opportunity // to vote for the ultimately compelling position, based on how I’ve been allowed to construct the conflict. Unless either debater convinces me otherwise, I affirm when persuaded, on balance, that the resolution is true or desirable from a descriptive or normative perspective, and otherwise negate. In a typical round I only have to intervene to minimize further intervention.
 * A round is “messy” if I have to intervene substantively (e.g. weighing impacts or cogency). You minimize risk and exert control with proper framing, differential analysis, weighing, and crystallizing. The fewer opportunities you leave on the table, the fewer your opponent or I may take.


 * Form **
 * Claim-warrant-impact is insufficient. The best arguments serve a larger and thoroughly-developed position, with clear impacts that link consistently not only to the criterion, but also to the resolution or ballot. Don’t just recite and defend contentions; rather, emphasize the operative and controlling aspects of your case, relative to those of your opponent’s, in a way that constructively resolves or at least evolves the debate.
 * I’ll flow CX and don’t consider it inherently secondary to speech. Leverage CX to narrow the round constructively and interactively (explore areas of agreement/clash, negotiate scope, allocate burdens, extract concessions, etc) rather than to spar adversarially or blindly.
 * Effective analysis matters most, then persuasion, followed by eloquence and originality. Appeal to emotion, if at all, to enhance an underlying position and not to justify it.


 * Mechanics and Style **
 * I have no issues with speed or theory, but you’re worse off with either if it jeopardizes quality.
 * I disclose unless the tournament disallows it.
 * I expect professional demeanor/courtesy toward your opponent. If I’m drinking coffee, humor can’t hurt you.


 * Before the round begins, I’m happy to clarify and willing to reconsider any of the above. **