Clifton,+Derrick

Derrick Clifton Walter Payton College Prep HS ‘07 Northwestern University ‘11

Number of rounds judged on the topic: 20 Number of years judging: 2

Overall I’m a tabula rasa kind of judge – In high school I ran a variety of arguments, so most of everything will be sweet to my ears if it is well argued, reasoned, and is impacted in the round. I evaluate just about everything but, like any other judge, I have my ticks and pet peeves.

Speaking: I’m happy if you can combine loudness and, very importantly, clarity with speed. I’ll yell CLEAR or LOUD otherwise and the more I yell the lower your speaker points will go.

Topicality/Theory/Framework: I’m fine evaluating these arguments. The more specificity, (i.e. case lists, impacted standards, clear explanations/overviews) the better. With Theory, I prefer that the side initiating a theory debate give me a good articulation of potential abuse or in-round abuse in order for me to vote another team down on the argument – otherwise, I tend to defer to ‘reject the argument, not the team’. Additionally, I hold these arguments to a stricter standard in terms of you speaking clearly so that the arguments themselves are flowable. I am not a robot, thank you.

Kritik: Negatives -- articulate the alternative clearly and earlier than the 2NR.

I am not a big fan of: - Blippy Theory/T arguments - Messy Framework Debates (engage them at your own risk, but give it some meaning/organization please)

I do particularly like: - Comparative impacts calc/analysis (i.e. DA turns case or Case Outweighs, etc.) - Extending the warrants to an important piece of evidence instead of just the tag and cite