Klein,+Martin


 * __CX Debate Judging Philosophy__:**

I believe my paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I am "tabula rasa" in terms of my decisional framework. I use the framework I am persuaded to use based upon the arguments advanced for or against a particular framework. If the issue is not debated, I default to a policymaker paradigm. I can be persuaded to be a hypothesis tester or games player -- it's all up to the debaters in the round.

I do not prejudge arguments. Thus, I am open to all types of arguments. By default, I consider topicality an a priori issue that I evaluate last; that is, I only vote on topicality if I would cast an affirmative ballot absent consideration of topicality. Thus, when asked if I "vote on topicality often," the answer is not very often, but that is not indicative of the importance I place on the issue.

I am also open to kritiks. It's up to the debaters to tell me how to evaluate the kritik(s) and why I should adopt their particular evaluative framework.

I listen to cross-examination. Answers to cross-examination questions bind the team being questioned. This includes failure to answer.

I enjoy theory arguments. However, I hold theory arguments to the same standard as other arguments -- they need to be warranted.

I don't flow as fast as I used to.

I am not a fan of oral critiques. I write my comments and reasons for decision on the ballot. The debate is supposed to take place during the round, not during a post-round evidence review.

My speaker point calculations follow the old AFA standard: analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation and delivery. More than anything else, they tend to reflect my subjective determination of the quality of strategy each debater employed in the round. They also tend to express the relative closeness of the round.

I have coached at Clear Lake and Deer Park High Schools in the Houston metro area. (I have coached elsewhere, but that was so long ago at this point I don't believe it relevant in terms of disqualifying me to judge a particular school.)


 * __LD Debate Judging Philosophy__:**

I believe my paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. By default, I will vote for the debater who persuades me that the resolutional action he or she advocates best furthers or achieves the most important value advocated, as measured by a valid criterion.

I consider the standards debate to be crucial. I am not wedded to a strict "value/criterion" formulation of the standard(s) I should employ -- that's up to the debaters to persuade me why their particular standards formulation is best in the given context.

Evidence is as important in LD Debate as in any other form of debate. I expect warranted arguments to support advocacy of particular standards.

I listen to cross-examination. Answers are binding on the party being interrogated. This includes failure to answer.

My speaker point calculations follow the old AFA standard: analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation and delivery. More than anything else, they tend to reflect my subjective determination of the quality of strategy each debater employed in the round. They also tend to express the relative closeness of the round.

I have coached at Clear Lake and Deer Park High Schools in the Houston metro area. (I have coached elsewhere, but that was so long ago at this point I don't believe it relevant in terms of disqualifying me to judge a particular school.)