Kohan,+Maryrose

toc =TOC 2012= = = =**Background:**= I am the head debate coach at George Washington HS in Denver, CO. I come from a very traditional LD State, so I am used to judging in an "old school" format. This means I am familiar with the traditional V/VC structure and how arguments work under that paradigm, but I am a little uncertain as to the function of other arguments and paradigms in LD (Although more on that later). I come from a policy background and am thus used to judging at coaching policy, although mostly on the local level. I am normally in the PF judging pool at circuit tournaments, so its been a while since I've judged national circuit LD. I should also tell you that the only circuit rounds I have judged on this topic are practice debates and thus, while I have a basic idea of many of the arguments on the topic, there are some I am less familiar with.

=**The Short Version:**= You should probably read the whole paradigm, but if you're running short on time, I am normally a PF judge at circuit tournaments. I'll listen to and vote on most types of arguments, but I'm not familiar with how they function in an LD round, so if you want to read something outside the traditional case with a V/C structure, it is your burden to explain the arguments function in the round to me. Moderate speed is okay. Shortcut prefs: Traditional: 1 Ks: 2/3 Theory: 4 Framework: 3 Policy: 2/3 Tricks: 4/5 =**How to debate in-front of me:**=

**Speed:**
Due to my policy background, I am generally good with some speed and will do my best to flow everything that you say. That being said, I must admit I am a little put off by debaters sitting down and reading at extremely rapid rates into a computer screen.

**Framework:**
Since the vast majority of my LD judging experience has been on the local circuit, I am not familiar with the complexities of ethical frameworks and have little to no experience evaluating meta-ethical, ontological or epistemological debates. That being said, if you REALLY want to run these arguments you had best slow down and explain the function of your arguments and the burdens set up by your framework. It's not that I am unwilling to vote on these, I just lack familiarity with them. I would prefer more simple, intuitive frameworks with simple burdens and intelligent analysis than complex frameworks that seek to preclude your opponent on multiple levels. Also, whether or not you think it's relevant in this day and age, I would prefer your case to have some kind of value that is defined via your framework.

Theory/Topicality:
Although I understand the function and purpose of theory because of my background in policy, I have no experience evaluating these debates in LD and it would be helpful for me if you broke down the ballot story. If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality. I will evaluate those debates and if you are winning it I will vote for you but I really need you to invest in explaining how theory interacts with the rest of the flow.

Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):
I am familiar with these arguments but don't think that because of my background in policy this will be the best strategy in front of me. While I know how a Plan, CP or Disad debate works in policy, I am unsure of how these arguments function in the context of an LD debate round. If you want to run these arguments you have the burden to explain why I should vote for them and how they function in relation to other arguments on the flow. Just because you're "winning" them doesn't mean I will vote for an argument that I don't understand how it functions.

Misc. Off-case Positions:
I am used to traditional LD. This means I am used to the aff reading their case and then the neg reading theirs. If you want to read an off-case position, I need to know how it functions in relation to both frameworks, my ballot etc. Once again, you have the burden to explain your arguments to me if you want me to vote for them.

Tricks:
If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you should probably not pref me/haven't read anything else on this paradigm.I like to see substantive debate and am likely to give your opponent a TON of leeway on these arguments. I will not outright refuse to vote for them, but don't think that extending a blippy a priori out of the AC framework is going to persuade me to vote for you.

Winning my Ballot:
1. Be clear about how arguments function and interact. Speed of light cross-applications might lose me. 2. Be Nice. I don't like watching a 2 person shouting match. They aren't fun for anyone. 3. Break it down and make it simple. The easier your arguments are to understand, the more likely I am to vote for them. Crystallization in the 2NR/2AR is in your best-interest.

I reserve the right to tell you that I just didn't understand your arguments, so don't get mad if I vote you down because I didn't understand a blippy cross-application of your framework. I am a human, humans are fallible and regardless of what else it might be, debate is still a communicative activity because it involved two people communicating (albeit sometimes at high speeds) to a judge.


 * Also, because this has been an assumption made in the past:** I DO NOT JUDGE THE WAY THAT MY DEBATERS DEBATE. Just because Matt debated a certain way or makes certain types of arguments does not mean I understand these arguments or want to see those debates.

Speaker Points:
I don't really have a set speaker point scale and this can be both in your favor and can hurt you. If you follow my paradigm and do a good job trying to adapt to my preferences, you will probably get generously high speaker points (You will probably get a bonus for helping me understand). However, if you choose to pay no attention to anything you have just read, you will probably get pretty bad points. Also, please don't ask me to disclose speaker points after a round. I am not comfortable with this. (Although I will disclose decisions and give an Oral RFD)

Concluding Note:
If you have read this and are considering striking me for whatever reason, I would like to make one last comment. While I may not be the most experienced or technical judge, I am extremely open to learning. The LD program at George Washington is only 4 years old and has only been on the circuit for two years. I would like to be able to work with people and help them compete on the circuit after this year's seniors are gone and I can only do that if you give me a chance to learn and to grow as a judge and as a coach.

Also, I understand paradigms also may fail to answer specific questions about how I would evaluate certain arguments. If you have questions or concerns contact Kate Burnite either via Facebook or Email (kate.burnite@gmail.com) and she will be able to answer any questions you might have.