Parker,+Jack

Jack Parker Assistant Coach – Mountain Brook High School Judging Philosophy

Seemingly, the function of providing a written judging philosophy is two-fold: First, to allow the debaters fair warning if their critic is some kind of community-standard bucking crazy person who never/ always votes on X, or does some other lunatic thing. Second, to provide you with a list of your judges’ intellectual predispositions, so that you may attempt to pander to them. Here’s what I would want to know about myself were I in your position:
 * 1) Most of what I believe to be true about debate theory I learned as a debater at Wake Forest. Therefore, I’m inclined in favor of (logical, limited) conditionality, a reasonability standard with topicality, and towards the idea that the affirmative should defend a policy action by the USFG.
 * 2) As a debater, David Heidt, Ken Strange, and Calum Matheson were my favorite judges. There’s nothing in the judging philosophies of any of these people that I disagree with.
 * 3) I place a high value on clear communication. If the words coming out of your mouth are unintelligible, I will be remorseless in discounting them.
 * 4) I like intense debates. But be happy and funny. Not a weird sulky jerk.

Really, I’m very happy to vote for any argument that is well explained, analyzed, and impacted. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.