Rutan,+Everett


 * Experience**: I was a very successful policy debater in high school, though that was quite some time ago. Since 1998 I have been involved in coaching at Xavier High School in Middletown, CT, and in running the Connecticut Debate Association. I have been coach and frequent judge, I have run tournaments and tab, and I have taught the judges workshop to prep new judges. I also write regular commentary on our tournaments.


 * Skill set**: As a former debater I take a good flow and can handle speed. As a coach I have considered keeping up with the development and evolution of debate theory and practice an important part of my job. As a judge, I provide a detailed written critique on the ballot: you may not agree with it, but you will be able to understand why I voted the way I did. Most of my experience has been with policy debate, though I am familiar with LD and parliamentary. I am unfamiliar with public forum.


 * Judging philosophy**: Call it ex-debater tempered by many years of business experience. The purpose of a judge is to judge, that is, to weigh the arguments presented by each side. Rarely does one side win every point, and rarely is a single point fatal to one side or the other. Therefore significance and likelihood must be considered in making a decision. To the extent that you make clear the strengths of your arguments relative to the topic and to your opponents' arguments, you provide me with a rationale for voting in your favor. To the extent that you simply make points, and don't make clear their relative importance, you leave more of the decision to me, which may or may not work in your favor.

This has implications for your presentation. Speaking quickly only helps to the extent that you make clear, complete and significant points that bear on the resolution and your opponents' arguments. Abstract and esoteric approaches by their nature require more effort on your part to demonstrate their importance. You should consider the value of an argument against the cost in speaking time needed to establish it. Failing to directly engage the arguments made by your opponents--or at least making clear why such engagement is not necessary--means that I have to compare and weigh the two sides on my own. Your goal should be to present me with a clear rationale for a decision in your favor that encompasses both the resolution and your opponents.