Mabie,+Mark

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of a debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out of round decorum, and of course the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education.

I will ALWAYS disclose even if the tournament tells me not to. It is my ethical duty as a debate instructor and judge to give you the best feedback I can after a round and increase your education. No one will stop me!

Judge preferences that must be met:

When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must sign post every argument and every response. If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. If you run a generic “CAP BAD K” just because it’s the easy way out in the round, I’ll probably be very upset with you. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. Also try to be creative with it, the less canned the better.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is fine. No spreading. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, you will be probably be dropped.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words them self if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Reread the “Kritiks” paragraph above. I will not accept any K in Public Forum unless under an extreme circumstance which would dictate it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Your arguments must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend a rebuttal argument in summary, then I will not also allow it in final focus.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win a round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Relate it back to the standard.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Lincoln Douglass and Policy

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics.