Covington,+Carol

I am a traditional Public Forum judge that especially appreciates a debater who

• respects the concept of “citizen judge” by using straightforward, clear, and direct language instead of arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory;

• speaks at a rate that gives the judge time to hear and comprehend points and arguments instead of spreading;

• debates ideas and evidence, not the people at the other table, and never ridicules, belittles, or speaks in a condescending way to anyone in the room;

• presents solid, verifiable evidence instead of pulling information out of context that only sounds like it supports your side. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts”;

• follows the rules: if the tournament hosts ask judges not to give personal feedback in order to keep on time, please don’t ask. If you have four minutes to present your case, don’t try to add on a roadmap before the clock starts. I do not consider kritiks, theory, or counterplans--but I do reward insightful, logical contentions, relevant warrant from reliable sources, and clear, focused impact.