Sharples,+Ian

=Ian Sharples – Judging Philosophy= December 2011

__ Debate Experience __ - 2003-2006: Mostly LD and Parli at Centennial High School in Bakersfield, CA. I also did Congress and one tournament of Public Forum. - 2006-2011: NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA-LD at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, CA. - Currently Coaching at PLNU   __ Judging Info __ - I haven't seen too many rounds this year between good teams that are evenly matched, so I am still learning how I evaluate those situations.  - Overall strategic choices almost always have greater influence on my decisions than line-by-line details. Think through your endgame.  - Most debates are lost in the LOC/MG or won in the MOC/PMR. The first scenario is far more common. - My most frequent feedback so far has been "massive parts of this debate are irrelevant". - I am willing to vote on any argument that is made in the round, but I have no problem ignoring things that are not arguments. - My basic threshold for an argument is that it must be warranted, internally coherent and have a terminalized impact. - Framework debate is important, but I usually resolve it by evaluating case and K on the same level. The exception is when teams give clear and justified prioritization. - I think all positions are conditional all the time, unless otherwise stated.  - On procedurals: I go for an abuse/fairness paradigm in Parli, and competing interps in LD. The difference has to do with changing v. stable resolutions.  - I like the strategic value of critical arguments, but I still think [|most] [|K lit] [|is silly].

__ Other Things __  - Points: 27 = should break at this tournament, 29 & up = top tier for this tournament. - PSCFA has this silly rule that you can't tie points, and I've gotten in the habit of following it. Apologies in advance if this inadvertently screws you out of a speaker award.  - Like: Aristotle, Locke, Mill / Dislike: Marx, Kierkegaard, Lyotard / Entertaining: Nietzsche, Hitchens, Zizek