Weiner,+Melissa

//Rounds I’ve judged on this year’s topic: // **24+** //Years judging: // **15** //High school debating experience: // **2yrs** //College debating experience: // **2yrs** Updated November 28, 2012
 * Melissa Weiner **

//I view my role as a judge within a debate round, is as a critic of the debate. I rely on the debaters to sufficiently lay down and adhere to the framework necessary to the round, as they see fit. I will vote where, and for the reasons the debaters choose. Do a good job explaining the voters and the warrants, and we’ll have no issues. No one is in favor of me crossing the line from critic to debater, and finishing the round on the flow, so don’t force me to do this. I do not feel it is my role to shape the arguments in the round, but I do view the skill to change or mold your platform and strategy, based on your critic’s preferences, as an integral part of debate. I believe the great debaters, not only excel at this skill, but also relish the challenge. //

A few specifics:

Topicality: on this year’s topic, I feel that many rounds may come down to this important piece of paper. I do view the 2012-2013 resolution, as having an inferred “investment” context to the resolution, so if you decide to go for FX topicality, make sure you’ve done the work. Otherwise, I may just view this as a default strategy, instead of appropriate, and your speaker points will reflect such. If the literature exists, it’s predicable. Make sure you show in round abuse, if you want me to vote here.

Kritik: I enjoy this part of the debate, though I feel most often the round comes down to a vague link and an alt that is not only poorly developed, but incomprehensible. Don’t assume I know the story of your K, argue it in a manner that does not require I have a PHD to understand or vote. Make sure you put me in the paradigm relevant and appropriate to the K you’re debating, or I’ll default to a policy-making paradigm, and evaluate the arguments through that lens.

C/P's: If you want to impress me, spend as much time developing your counterplan, as you do your 1AC. providing me with a single card that simply indicates a generic state oversight, without any direct relevance to c/plan text or any specific author advocacy is becoming a disappointing trend that I would like to change. I will default to the conditionality of the c/p, if no one says otherwise. I am not fond of relying on the theory debate here, as an end-all voter, so if you must ask me to vote here, you would be better off, if you prove clear in-round abuse.

//I choose to view debate as a speech art, and as such, do request that the debaters respect each other as competitors, within the round. I will dock speaker points for obviously rude and disrespectful comments and behavior. Arguments such as, “on their 2nd ridiculously stupid argument”, is probably not a wise comment in front of me, if you relish your speaker points. Debaters take note: an argument is a claim and a warrant. If you want me to vote on something, do not simply tell me “it’s a voter”, “no link”, or “they don’t solve”, if you fail to provide me with the warrant behind your claim, be prepared for me dismiss your claim, as incomplete and insufficient. //

***If you have any other questions, ask. Otherwise, have fun with debate, and I’ll see you in the round.**