Whitrock,+Richard

Whitrock, Richard: LD

Former competitor, current coach.

I'm a firm believer that debaters should play the game they are best at; in other words, debaters who try to pander to certain judging philosophies in order to appease are doing both themselves and the judge a disservice. If you have to change your game to accomodate a judge, and therefore are not at your best, then the round suffers. Thus, as a judge, I feel it is important to just "let the kids debate" instead of force them into a position where their performance might suffer. That said, I do have some important guidelines I look for - not following them will not guarantee a loss or bad speaker points necessarily, but can be used as insight into how I might interpret what's happening in front of me during the round.

1. Don't spread. Going quickly, if you're capable of being clear while doing so, is a viable method of debate, but it almost always will be reflected negatively in your speaker points. I have a strong preference for those who rely on logic, depth, and persuasion rather than the "shotgun" method of throwing as many arguments as possible, hoping that a few will stick and a large portion will be dropped. I view this as, at best, a technical win, and only if successful. Thus, while drops are certainly important, I can be persuaded to ignore them in favor of more important arguments. If you spread and are successful, your speaker points will suffer. If you spread and cannot handle being clear at that speed, then you will most likely lose and your speaker points will still suffer, and probably worse. If you have to choose between many shallow arguments and just a few highly insightful ones that show excellent analysis, choose the latter. Quality over quantity.

2. I hold the burdens as essential: burden of proof for the Aff, burden of clash for a Neg. The worst possible thing a Neg can do is have a round that can be likened unto two ships passing in the night - a beautiful case and excellent arguments, but no clash. Conversely, the worst thing the Aff can do is ignore their burden to prove their case - so unless the Aff can specifically show a standard for proof and how they meet that standard with an Aff ballot/case, the round cannot go well.

3. I'm fine with flex negs, but it's a risk that the debater must decide to take knowingly. The two types of flex negs I've seen are: no negative case at all (straight clash for all 13 minutes of constructive/rebuttal), or usurping the Aff Val/Crit and building the case in round to show how a negative ballot achieves both better than the aff (or how an aff ballot destroys both). It is incredibly persuasive to be able to pull either of these off (especially the latter), but if it's tried and failed then it can backfire horribly. As far as the former, I buy the argument that the Neg doesn't have to prove the resolution as false or build a case to do so, just clash with the aff case and show how it doesn't meet the burden of proof. The gamble there is that I will have much higher expectations as to both the breadth and depth of the arguments made. If the neg goes straight clash but doesn't have enough to show for it at the end of the round (or doesn't win the clash arguments/show the burden of proof is not met), then I have no reason at all to vote Neg since there's no Neg case. As to the latter, attempting to take the Aff case and make it work for the neg, but failing, will be disastrous. If you choose to take this chance, you better win the arguments - it can be easier to show how one case is superior to another when there are different values and criteria, but if it's the same V/C for both then the issue of superiority is rendered irrelevant and the only path to a win is through showing how that value and criteria are best achieved by a ballot consistent with YOUR side of the resolution. It's hard to keep the Aff from filling their burden of proof if they win the argument that the only value and criteria in the round go to their side.

4. Impacts can be crucial to persuasion. Structural arguments have added weight in my opinion because they show an advanced understanding of the opponents case. The danger with them is that without impacts, they are no more than technicalities.

5. I prefer the traditional Value/Criterion structure, but I'm flexible - the round will be decided by the arguments, not by whether I like the construction of your case.

6. CLARIFY - I like voter issues, but more importantly I like to know that the debaters can tell what's going on, what it means, what's important, and especially WHY it's important. Clarity of the round (the issues raised, impacts, analyses, and the relative heirarchical value of the arguments) is critical.