Evnen,+Tom

Tom Evnen
I debated LD on the national circuit for four years in high school. I have taught at both the National Debate Forum (NDF) and the National Symposium for Debate (NSD). I am currently the assistant debate coach for Hockaday.

By default, I decide rounds based on the arguments articulated by both debaters and I have no objection to either stock or non-stock argumentation. I have no preset attachment to evaluating arguments through any particular framework (e.g. via a value/criterion), so I will weigh arguments based upon the framework and order articulated by debaters in the round. Additionally, I have no problem with speed. However, I do not have the best hearing, so if you are speaking quickly you should //not// also speak extremely quietly, or I may miss some of your arguments.

I have also noticed a few specific patterns in the way I usually think about rounds:

First, while I very much enjoy critical argumentation, it is often difficult to evaluate it (and, therefore, to vote on it) unless debaters articulate a framework, vis-à-vis the resolutional burdens and/or in-round argumentation at hand, under which the critique compels me to either affirm or negate, whichever the case may be. This doesn’t mean that I have a higher standard for evaluating critical arguments as opposed to stock arguments; I am only mentioning critical arguments specifically because I frequently see otherwise effective criticisms suffer from their lack of explicit attention to any mechanism of adjudication.

Second, regarding theory debates, I do not //assume// that I should vote for someone simply because they have proven that their opponent is untopical or unfair. Debaters need to explicitly articulate reasons why I should vote on theory before anything else.

Third, I am highly displeased with new arguments in the 2AR/1NR. Most judges certainly feel the same way, but I should add that I am probably more sensitive to this issue than others. Your speaker points will suffer if you make new arguments.