Stowitts,+Mark


 * Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA**

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for four years, judging it for nine. I like it. Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in someone using technicalities to tell me why LD or the resolution is pointless. Engage in an argument with the other person's contentions. Don't try to steal the ground of the debate.

I don't disclose decisions or speaker points, though I will give some comments if it is within the tournament norms and you have specific questions.

In more depth:
 * Speed/flow:** I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need to spread to win. If you do need to spread to win, you'll probably lose with me anyhow. Good debating should be good public speaking: spreading (staring at a computer screen, gulping air and spitting out words with barely intelligible diction, with no connection to the audience) isn't. Also, it's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear" when you are speaking, and I am certainly not interested in seeing your case. I will flow the debate to some degree, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just covering the flow. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing. I'll try to listen as best I can. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.


 * Evidence:** Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about dtting into extended discussions about methodology of studies.


 * Attitude:** By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. I will give you the decision, but lower your speaker points if you are rude or antagonistic. You don't have to be loud, fast, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.


 * Speaker points:** I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, harms) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept other theory if you are both versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.
 * Theory:** I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to LD. If you want to debate using Policy methods, get a partner and debate Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges LD rules and norms is just overly clever students playing games or showing how they know the jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart.


 * Kritiks:** I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and most I've seen did not offer alternative or good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. Biopower, capitalism, racism, gendered language, false binaries - I've seen them and generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" I can't think of a good answer for that question.


 * Other:** A "performance" case will lose with me, no matter what. They are a waste of everyone's time. If all you can do is pathos, you deserve to lose. Try OPP.