Wiegel,+James

James Wiegel Eastside Catholic High School, Director of Forensics 2 years of experience coaching, 7 years judging, 2 years debating

I judge primarily LD, occasionally PFD.

My paradigm is fairly straightforward - I'm a "value/value criteria" sort of guy. When I go to judge a round, I look first and foremost to the values debate. Once it is settled which value (or values) are paramount in the round, I look for the criterion or list of criteria surviving on the flow and then look to the voting issues given by each debater. Whoever has argued most persuasively and logically that they are winning the VC and therefore the V will win the round.

I interfere as little as humanly possible in my decisions. I expect the debater to supply me with arguments and I judge on the flow. Speaker points will reflect the quality of rhetoric and oratory, but that will not influence my decision (except in rare circumstances when someone is so rude that I drop them for it).

I accept critiques of the resolution. I accept them only because I judge on the flow and don't interefere. In general, I will hold critiques to a very high standard. Merely asserting that a philosopher would dislike a resolution is insufficient. All claims must be warranted. That doesn't make good rhetoric, nor does it sound professional. I will, however, pick up someone running a critique IF they arugue well and their opponent fails to make good counterarguments.

For LD, I generally accept well-warranted logical / ethical claims as equally valid with evidence based claims. The fact that an argument lacks a card is insufficient reason to reject the argument, unless it is a fact-claim that requires evidential support.

PFD, in contrast to LD, almost requires interference from the judge. I will try to go by the flow, but as PFD is INTENDED to be closer to a speech event in being persuasive and conversational, I will allow my "do I agree with the logic / evidence of this argument" meter in my brain to interfere. Given the short time for rebuttals in PFD, that's a necessity for judging the round. I also tend to let CX and crossfire weigh more heavily in my decision (whereas in LD it doesn't count for anything but speaks unless it is explicitly brought into the round).

My only sore spot in PFD is rounds lacking good evidence, when it simply devolves into a "yes I do" and "no you don't" debate. Argue, analyze, CLASH. That's good debate.

Hope that helps! -James Wiegel