Allen,+John

Judging Philosophy John Allen Affiliations: Academy of International Studies

First and most importantly, I expect you to prepare for your debate. This doesn’t just mean writing blocks, cutting cards, etc. You must read this philosophy (the rubric for which I will evaluate the round) and watch the sample videos. Until then, I will refuse to evaluate your round. The aforementioned rubrics and models will replace the usual post-round feedback. After your round, I will provide you with a circled rubric evaluating your performance and may find new models on this webpage.

Second, when evaluating the round, I will use my guiding question: “To what degree do I understand that which I'm about to reject?” What this means for you: If I don’t understand arguments, I will be forced to vote for you because I can’t reject what I don’t understand.

I only have a few rules: 1. Come to every debate with your best game every day. We want the best of our minds to meet.

2. The only time you may draw attention to yourself is when you’re making a speech

3. Conducting side conversations (this includes talking to your partner), prepping for other debates, playing with your cell-phone, sleeping, and any other ways of drawing attention to yourself in unacceptable ways will not be tolerated. No hoods, hats, or earphones of any kind may be worn in the room. If your speech-act/performance requires such attire, I will unfortunately have to vote against you.

4. We’ve all been in debate long enough to know how important it is to have a positive and constructive atmosphere. We have much better time together and learn more as a group and as individuals when everyone comes ready to engage.

5. Flowing**—**you are expected to write during the debate, taking and making notes. Taking notes means writing down someone else’s ideas. Making notes means writing your own ideas and insights as the debate progresses.

6. By 11:59 pm the night after your round, you must write a blog entry about what you learned.

7. DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME—I have a sexy brain and am always right. If you do argue, I will make you cry.

In accordance with books I have read recently on learning and speaker points, I will now be implementing a modified speaker point scale. I believe you are all too caught up in speaker points and that this stands in your way from learning. The scale is as follows: 25—Fully Developed: This means that you did everything I asked you to. I was impressed. Remember, the goal is not perfection, therefore I will not assign anything above a 25. 20—Developing: You’re making progress, but still have steps to take before you reach fully developed. 15—Incipient: Your performance was missing large portions of great importance. 10—Incomplete: You did not participate.

CX is formative—it is for learning your argumentative styles. Therefore, the speaker points I assign for CX will not count towards your final score. But if you fail to complete a cross-x, you will automatically get a 5.

You must have originals of all your evidence (that means printing it) and back-up copies of all your work. I will not accept “My computer and/or printer crashed” etc. as an excuse for not giving a speech.

Now for my positions on specific arguments—

1. Counterplans—there are only two that I will listen to a) Word PICs—I love these; I think language is beautiful and you should all have debates about language. I will look even more favorably on use of Shakespeare in your round.  b) Consult CPs—I think that we should all be interested in expanding our brains everyday. When we refuse to take into account the minds of others, our own minds will hit a brick wall.

2. Disadvantages—I don’t really pay much attention to your speech, but I will look closely at the link. This is the transition point of the disad, where you move from the affirmative plan to the reason why it is bad. If the link is good, the rest of the disad must be too.

3. Critiques—I only listen to critiques written by post-modernists—I particularly like arguments about distance, complexity, and art. Please make as many contrived connections to pop culture as you can.

4. Topicality—THIS IS A RESOLUTIONAL BURDEN. If I told you to write a paper about post-modernism, then I would expect you to write a paper about post-modernism. If you didn’t, I would be forced to fail you. The one exception is if you choose to compliment me during all of your speeches. If you choose to do this, despite not being topical, I will probably vote for you and give you the maximum amount of speaker points (25).

5. Plan flaws—Don’t run them—affirmative teams should be able to break a few rules of grammar; it’s what all the great writers do. But affirmatives beware: If your use of grammar is unintentionally incorrect, I will insta-vote neg.