Kirkell,+Michael

I competed extensively in the late 1980’s and judged about 100 or so rounds of LD in the late 1990’s in Pennsylvania (including break and final rounds throughout the state). I haven’t seen a LD round in about 9 years but always enjoyed judging and was curious to see what LD was like these days. My judging philosophy is as follows:


 * 1) I value argumentative links. I want to see a debater link a value to the resolution, a criterion to the value, and contentions to both and the resolution itself. Sometimes, a link is self-evident. But, unless it absolutely is self-evident, I want to see the argumentative link. I will not hold one debater responsible if a link is weak or absent if a debater does not point it out (I will point it out as an instructive tool on a ballot). But, I will place higher emphasis than some where a debater goes after his or her opponent’s argumentative links.


 * 1) I see LD as an exercise in communication. To my mind, there’s a reason that LD isn’t called “one person policy debate”. As such, I like to see a person speak at a natural pace and make eye contact. I want to be persuaded, and part of persuading a person revolves around the stylistic aspects of argumentation.
 * 2) I do not like speed and spread. If you speak quickly and try to spread your opponent out of a round, then this is not a recipe for a loss. But, remember, I only judge you on what I hear and write down. Be careful not to speak too quickly (you should be able to tell when you are if you’re paying attention). As another cautionary tale, please note that I will not automatically give you the win simply because your opponent can’t cover contention one, point A, subpoint C.


 * 1) I see evidence as something that supports an argument, not a substitute for it. If you say contention one is “blah, blah, blah” and that Professor So-And-So from The Such-And-Such School says “blah, blah, blah”, then that alone strikes me as a pretty weak argument. Make a point. EXPLAIN THE POINT. Then, use the quotation to support the point.


 * 1) I enjoy a good cross examination. Use that time to set up for attack the underlying assumptions of your opponent’s arguments and to set up your own case. It will make an impression.


 * 1) As far as actual arguments go, I don’t think that anything is out of bounds. I like a creative argument. I like an intellectually well-developed argument. And, I do like to be surprised in this regard.

At the end of the day, the approach that I’d like you to take in front of me is as follows: Imagine that I am an eight year old boy eating an ice cream cone. Your objective is to draw my attention away from that ice cream cone. Obviously, my attention span and intellectual skills are a little more refined, but you will aid your cause significantly if you attempt to communicate with me and to articulate well-reasoned, attention grabbing arguments.