Harold,+Paul

Paul Harold, Harvard University Judging Philosophy, February 2010

Standard disclaimer - Debate as you like; I'll do my best to judge the debate as objectively as possible.

Inclinations:

Policy/Critique - I have no conscious bias for either. Many critical arguments are complex and poorly articulated by debaters, and the same could be said of some policy arguments. While I will call for cards at the end of the debate, especially those mentioned by cite in the final rebuttals, you would benefit from being as clear as possible about your argument in the actual debate round, and leaving as little as possible to my interpretation of your evidence.

Theory, generally - A good number of theory debates happen more quickly than I can flow them. If you think you’re going to go for theory, slow down and be clear. Don't expect me to take "aff bias, neg flex, lit checks" as serious arguments.

Theory, Counterplan - I'm comfortable with conditionality, but I would vote on a well-argued Conditionality bad violation. I'd look askance at multiple conditional counter-plans and alternatives.

Theory, Cheap shots - Really unlikely to vote for these.

Performance - I don't know how to evaluate 'performance arguments.' If you're going to perform, please be clear about what your argument is and how to evaluate it.

Weighing paradigm - Offense/Defense is good up to a point. I'm comfortable assigning practically zero risk to silly arguments that have been discredited by the debaters.

Strategy/Technique - I like good strategies and on-point answers make judging easier, but I'm likely to consider if the thesis of one side's argument answers a specific, dropped claim.