Ginger,+Scott

School: Green Valley H.S., Director of Speech and Debate Experience: 21 years

LD Judging Paradigm: I am a traditional judge. I prefer the debate to focus primarily on the resolution with thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments. Real world examples with their impacts are usually more persuasive than argumentation focused on hypotheticals and theories only. I appreciate a clear case that includes the standard, arguments for support (philosophical and pragmatic), and impacts. Quality wins out over quantity (silence is not necessarily consent). Depth in key arguments wins out over a litany of arguments.

Criterion: I feel that the criterion in a debate round should be process oriented, not some vague notion substantiated by other vague notions.

Speed: A quick presentational style is acceptable as long as it is clear (conversationally fast). If you are going too fast, and you choose not to adjust, I will catch what I can, but then I’ll be forced to weigh what I caught, as opposed to everything you presented. I prefer clearly articulated tags, citations, etc. In rebuttals, make it clear where you want the argument to be flowed by argument not author. Delivery should be clear.

CX: I listen to CX. I don’t base decisions on what happens in CX, but during this time it is possible to get a feel for what you are comfortable or uncomfortable with in the round.

Non-Resolutional Debate: Please debate the resolution, not a K on a completely different topic. The framers of the resolution spent some time deciding the topic. Debate the topic.

Voters: Substantial issues outweigh a list of arguments. Real world impacts, real world scenarios can be very persuasive.