Walker,+Demarius

Boston, University Henry W. Grady High School Rounds Judged: Over the course of my debate career the rounds I have judged this year have been limited to less then 50. Experience: I have debated for 4 years in both LD and PF debate
 * Demarius J. Walker**

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
I would describe myself as a traditional LD judge, though I pretty much find most arguments acceptable in a round as long as they are clearly linked back to the resolution or shown as relevent. I believe a good debater tells me what to think but a great debater tells me how to think.


 * Values and Value Criterion:** I consider this one of the most important parts of LD debate and most of the time I will vote for whomever most clearly shows their value's link to the resolution and superiority in the round. I mostly prefer the presence of a VC as a way of achieving the value. However if the links are clearly shown I can get over its absence. Most of the arguments in the round should link back to either the V or VC that is how my ballot is won.


 * Theory**: Theory has a clear place in LD debate and I rather enjoy it. But only when it is necessary and crucial in the round and not simply a distraction from the actual debate that is happening. It is usually very clear when the time is appropriate for theory argumentation in a round and when the issue is forced as a red herring.


 * Weighing & Voters.** As I've stated a good debater doesn't simply tell me what to think but how to think and that's done through voters and weighing arguments. Voters are very crucial at the end of the rounds and without them I must evaluate the round based on what I thought was important and the judge should not have that much power because it makes the round more variable. Similarly without properly weighing arguments it is up to me to choose based on some arbitrary calculus which argument is stronger. Most of the time these arguments just become a wash for me and don't enter the decision calculus. So use the voters, the VC, and other weighing mechanisms to tell me what is important.


 * Speed.** I believe that LD debate in large part depends on persuasion and speed takes away that persuasive element of debate. I can handle moderate speed, coming from a high school team with a large policy debate focus, but I would prefer a small number of well-articulated arguments as opposed to a large number of weak arguments. At the point in the round where it becomes clear that speed is simply being used as a tool to throw off opponents I start to really frown upon it.