Arnold,+John

John W. Arnold Centennial High School Ellicott City, Maryland This is my third year coaching and judging LD debate.

__L-D Debate Judging Philosophy__

I will not intervene during the debate, nor ask to see evidence after the debate. Feel free to ask any questions prior to the round.

I enjoy judging LD rounds when the debaters focus on communicating with each other and educating me. This is the basis on which I assign speaker points. Don’t be afraid to clash, in fact, clash intentionally, but with civility.

I prefer a clear standard with which I can evaluate the round. Make sure that you link and impact back to the standard. Don’t just tell me that they do, prove it. I am definitely listening for claim—warrant—impact in the presentation of evidence and logical argumentation. I’d rather LD debaters did not spread, but as long as your speed does not affect your articulation and comprehensibility, I am fine with it. Make it easy for me with road maps and signposting. Both AFF and NEG should be sure to clearly and effectively crystallize their position in their final speeches.

My decision is based on my review of what I have on my flow at the end of the round.

This is my second year judging policy debate.

__Policy Debate Judging Philosophy__

I find Policy Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support and defend them.

Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you. Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it. I’d rather not evaluate the debate in topicality issues, but will if forced to. Absent an in-round framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on whether or not the topical plan would be a good idea. I don’t think kritiks provide for the best debates, but will listen to them and consider them, if given a clearly articulated and warranted reason to.

Argue what you believe in, are passionate about and are good at. Enjoy what you are spending so much time doing!