Dietrich,+Bryce

Name: Bryce J. Dietrich College Debate Experience: 4 Years of Competition (UMKC) + 2 Years of Coaching (UMKC)

My judging philosophy is difficult to define since I feel as though I do not have any substantial predispositions toward any class of argument. Generally, as a debater I relied primarily on DA/CP strategies, but this does not mean that these are the only arguments I will listen to. All that I require is that you make your best effort to advance the best arguments you can. I tend to abhor debaters who rely on buried cheap shots to win debate rounds. I do not find it at all productive and I think it damages the activity. With that said, as a debater, I relied on this type of strategy myself from time to time, which means that I may vote for it even though I may not like it. Finally, for those who want a more lucid judging philosophy, I am fine with the following classes of arguments: DAs, CPs, Topicality, Kritiks, CP Theory, Framework, and Alternative Styles of Debate. With all classes of arguments, explanation is required. What is you argument? And why does it matter? I encourage argumentative creativity, but realize that the further you step outside of the ordinary the more you must explain to get the judge to that point. I hope this brief description of my judging philosophy helps. Feel free to ask me questions before and after debate. I am fairly friendly and I will try my best to help you understand where I am coming from.