Kirkman,+Fernando


 * Fernando Kirkman Judge Philosophy (Updated 2013 Transportation Topic) **


 * Background: **

*I debated in high school for 3 years at BCC *College 4 years (3 at Towson University, 1 at Michigan State) *2011 NDT First round *2011 CEDA Finalist *Round on the Transportation Topic: 50+ (Including 6 TOC Tournaments: Bronx, Georgetown, Capital, Blake, Emory, Lakeland)

**My Thoughts on Debate:**

Debate is an organic activity that constantly evolves and as a judge I don’t like to be a barrier to that evolution so I really try to make sure that above all things that I keep an open mind when it comes to types AND styles of argument. I also try to maintain a good flow of the round to make sure that the decision that I make is well thought out and clearly articulated. I don’t like debates where the teams try to over-adapt to me as a judge. I am fan of judge adaptation but when I judge I do it as a service to debaters that want a judge to evaluate the arguments they work on and enjoy fairly. I have no problem voting on complicated arguments but I WILL NEVER vote for an argument that I don’t understand because it is the debater’s job to communicate their position in a way that I can understand what they want me to vote on at the end of the round.

**Type of debates that I like:**

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case. I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm when thinking through arguments and even though I am sure that I can persuaded otherwise it is an uphill battle and I am sure the time in the debate can be spent in a more productive way. I don’t have an agenda and I am not in any ideological camp so I am open to almost any arguments as long as it is logical and well argued. That is normally my answer to any questions in reference to the question: “What/How do you think/feel about X types of arguments”. I tend to really weight rounds based on impacts and that includes but is not limited to policy/fait-based impacts, “real world” and “debate space” impacts.

**Specifics:**

__Flashing__-I don’t take prep for flashing but I have noticed that the teams that the most efficient with flashing tend be the better debaters. Not saying there is causation but definitely a correlation.

__ Theory __ - I am pretty well versed on theory question. Normally won’t pull the trigger on T without in-round abuse and/or just really good T debating, which includes winning the interp, standards, and clear abuse story. I tend to look at education as a terminal impact on theory questions.

__K Debate__- If you don’t understand it, don’t run it because normally you lose in front of me. I was not a policy debater in college but I really wasn’t a K debater either, don’t assume I know what your K is about or have any interest in the literature that can be a fatal mistake. Also don’t be discouraged to run K’s in front of me if you are good at it because those debates tend to be some of my more favorite debates and really make me think, and rethink things. I tend to believe what ever flavor the K is it should have a clear alternative.

__DA, CP, Case__- I tend to judge a lot of these debate, and I don’t really mind doing it either. I’ll probably end up calling for a lot of cards at the end of the round to inform my decision so if this is how you roll makes sure you are reading quality evidence. If you evidence sucks and I call for it, that might lose you the debate. Don’t be mad, cut better cards.

__Alternative/Performance__- I enjoy watching these debates but I sometimes hate judging these debates because I hate when teams assume that alternative styles of debates necessarily get them out of defending the way they debates or the arguments they are advancing. I actually think that considering the way I debated in college I might hold these teams to a higher standard because I have debated more non-traditional debate arguments. No matter how good you music, song, poem, dance or what ever it you must keep in mind that this is debate and you have to actually answer arguments and defend the things you do in debate.