Gibson,+Kirk

Kirk Gibson Pace Academy & Emory University

I've revised my judge philosophy as of October 2013. After combing through a lot of judge philosophies that were very similar, I thought mine could be a lot better. I've updated this to include some of the basic beliefs that I have about debate and tried to explain how that informs how I view some of the things you probably care about.

__First, debate is a competitive game.__ This game has educational benefits, but I think that most people participate in the game because it's fun and/or because they want to win. This belief impacts how I view framework and theory debates, as I am primarily concerned with fairness, the ability to participate in the round, and the "fun-ness" of the game. Any educational benefits of a round are a secondary concern (warming good is proof that you can have a fun debate where you learn nothing), and other theory or framework standards (logic, for example) are largely unpersuasive to me.

__Second, the literature base determines clash, and clash is what makes the game fun__. This means I don't like to vote for arguments that try and avoid clash. Counterplans that compete on immediacy/certainty or even worse, the states CP, are (generally) not grounded in the literature and result in less clash in a single debate since there aren't real answers. They also result in less clash year to year, as we don't consider interesting topics because there might not be an answer to these distortions of the lit base. The more your argument clashes with the affirmative - the more I like it. Impact turns are the best, big DAs, case specific critiques, well researched PICs - I enjoy all of these debates. If your link isn't talking about any part of the plan and/or the explanation isn't there, I won't like it. Same thing goes for cheap shot theory arguments, I'm unlikely to vote on it.

Conditionality can increase or decrease clash, it depends on the round, the positions, and how everything is debated. However, I tend to think that the more conditional worlds there are, the less likely good clash is to occur. I am not going to kick the counterplan for the negative under any circumstances. The 2NR must make a strategic decision and advocate it.

__Third, clarity in communication is extremely important__. This means literal clarity: If the judge or your opponents cannot hear or understand you, you should not be rewarded for that part of the debate. If you intentionally misrepresent the evidence you read, you should lose the debate. Also, debate is a communicative activity, not a card submission activity. The burden is on you to clearly communicate your argument for me to evaluate it. If I do not understand it, I am not going to vote on it. Finally, I appreciate precision in explanation. For example, if you're debating topicality, saying there would be "an infinite number of affs" isn't true. It also doesn't help anyone understand what kinds of affs become topical under an interpretation. Giving a list or even categories of affs that would be topical is much better.

__Miscellaneous__: Prep time ends when the flash drive is out of the computer OR when the email is sent. You should not have to do anything else for your opponents to get the speeches. Debate is interesting when it doesn't get stale: "try or die," "cold conceded," "probably," "fundamental(ly)," and "thesis" are stale. "Literally" doesn't mean "figuratively." I'm not likely to vote on underwarranted/unwarranted theory arguments even if they're dropped.

Finally, I know that it's a competitive game and everyone wants to win, but I think it's extremely important to be respectful of your opponents. Cross-x's are far too often too aggressive for my liking. Being rude, shouting someone down, or insulting //people// instead of //arguments// will make me very unhappy. Stealing prep is also unacceptable. You think you're getting away with it - but I'm watching you and it's affecting your points.

I love debate and love talking about debate. Email me or find me at a tournament if you have any questions. Kirkgibson1 at gmail