Owens,+Jaclyn

I was a four year high school debater, competing in Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Foreign and Domestic Extemp, Original Oratory, and Public Forum Debate. In college I was invited onto the debate team, but declined.

Basics- One of my major judging points is a clear, logical flow to an argument. If an argument isn't logical, then it seems scarcely possible that it is a winning argument. I strictly judge on the use of philsophy (applying predominantly to LD debates); if used, they should be used properly. That being said, I'm open to any take on an argument--even if it's considered the "immoral" side--and will not automatically reject such arguments if they work logically. As a philosophy major, I'm completely open to devil's advocates and modest proposals if appropriately done, and I'm cool with the proposal of any legitimate philosophy even if I don't personally agree with it (I feel it is important to logically work out whether a philosophy is feasable rather than focusing on my feelings toward it).

Opponents- I do get annoyed with ad hominem arguments (along with many other fallacies) really quickly, and while it's perfectly acceptable to say something like, "My opponent clearly stated X and Y in contention one," it will not fly to claim your opponent said something they didn't, nor will I accept personal attacks outside the scope of the debate. Keep it clean.

Arguments- Warrants are imperative. I must know why I bothered listening, and it's scarcely an argument without a warrant. Taglines are greatly appreciated, and in LD, they're all but required. Evidence must be from reality; all the information should be kept on hand in case it is asked for. Clear voting issues definitely help. Spreading is completely acceptable, though if done in LD, the judge and opponent must be able to clearly understand what's being said; this probably shouldn't be done by those who mutter or stammer.

Theory- It better be the best, most interesting theory I've ever heard, because otherwise it's just an epic timesuck.

At the end of the day, I walk into a debate as unbiased as possible, and it's up to the debaters to convince me (as should be the case). This is most easily done through logical arguments with strong warrants, and the proper use of philosophy certainly doesn't hurt when appropriate. If I don't buy an argument or find it abusive, I won't do anything about it until the opponent says something about it.

Happy to be as descriptive as I can on my judging; I am more than willing to give more information if needed.