Gushue,+Thomas


 * Background**
 * Former Competitor (LD, Extemp, Congress), 1994 - 1996
 * Judge (I've judged everything at least once), 1996 - Present
 * Coach (LD, Congress), 2003 - Present


 * Judging Preferences (LD)**
 * Speed: "Whatever you think you can do, I can handle". I can't tell you the last time I've been outspread in an LD round, and no -- that's not a challenge. That being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with speed, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of clash, then that's your fault, not your opponent's. Also, if you're spreading for the sake of speed, and I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, then there's nothing I can flow. You'll know you're being unclear if my pen hits the desk and I give you the death stare.
 * Jargon: I'm not a fan of it, as it detracts from the ability for people not well versed in the activity to follow it, but I've gotten used to it.
 * Argumentation: LD is a theoretical debate, and if you expect to pick up my ballot, you'll keep it that way. For example, on the Nov/Dec 09 topic, you can talk about H1N1, but if you don't impact it back to why it justifies compulsory imunizations, you just wasted my time. Also, you're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you can't even assume that the problems you want to solve for exist in the first place.
 * Kritiks: Cute? Yep. Amusing? You bet. Refreshing? Like a Sprite on a hot, summer day. But there's no place for it in LD debate. My pennies and $5 bills weep when you try and skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your value is something based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event. You want to expand your education? Try doing the event you signed up for.


 * Judging Preferences (Policy)**
 * Since I've wound up in policy rounds occasionally, I figure to make two quick notes on my preferences in those type of rounds:
 * Speed: Unlike in LD, I've been outspread in policy rounds (especially when they're early rounds in a day). Usually, I'll do a bit more staring, trying to chunk the information before writing a summarization down. Don't feel like I'm not listening to you, I'm just trying to manage the amount of infomation bombarding me.
 * Argumentation: I tend to prefer judging under a hypothesis testing paradigm (when available), a result of judging mostly LD. When that's not an option, I lean more towards a tabula rasa paradigm.