Eliason,+Shawn

for CX:

I have coached & judged for Truman High School in suburban Philadelphia since the late 90s. I judge about 20-30 rounds a year. Truman travels lightly due to budget issues, so we only attend circuit tournaments between Boston and Virginia if at all.

As a judge, I am a tab judge in the sense that I do not rule out any argument, with that said..... I weigh arguments in the traditional offense/defense paradigm. My evolution as a judge started out with me leaning slightly hypo-tester and then I leaned towards kritikal rounds and now I find myself preferring more of a policy maker mindset....but the moral of the story is that I am not overly tied to any of them.

I tend to hold kritiks to a higher standard given their 'greater' expansive claims and expect some significant work to be put it. I have a slightly tougher trigger on T then most judges but I do vote on it frequently.

I try very hard not to intervene in rounds unless I am forced to. I take the approach that bad, even obviously wrong, arguments need to be answered by the debaters in the round. Bad arguments should not need judge intervention to be defeated.

I expect integrity and civility.....fabrication, insults, deliberate acts that are not dealing with actual arguments will all cause me to intervene despite any evidence.

One thing to keep in mind....it is possible to spread me out of the round. I find that my ability to keep up with really fast rounds decreases each year. Unfortunately Pennsylvania debate is not even close to being up to snuff which the rest of the nation. The effects of judging here has caused my skills to atrophy a bit. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the fastest, I find that I can fairly safely handle the 7-8 range. Anything higher and I will have holes on my flow. I have nothing against speed, I haven't seen it frequently for over a decade now.

for LD:

I tend to have a traditional purist view of LD. I think that each debater has the requirement to affirm or negate the hypothesis of the resolution. I care far more for the philosophical, moral, and logical ramifications of your arguments then I do the real world impacts. I care far less about your speaking style then I do about your logical prowess, so I will always choose substance over style. While evaluating the round I always start first with DEFINITIONS -> VALUE -> CRITERION -> CONTENTIONS.

for PF:

Public Forum can sometimes be the most difficult event to judge simply because of it's utter lack of convention. As a CX guy, I prefer not to judge this event but have been asked to on occasion. There really are no expectations as to what is required to win overall....but I have a few of my own. 1) If you do not answer an opponent's argument, you are granting it as true for my ballot. PERIOD! 2) Logic and evidence are important! I will be persuaded by evidence and logical discussions of history. I will not be persuaded in the slightest by hyperbole or opinion without warrant or foundation. Sadly I frequently think that later dominates this event. I don't care how good of a speaker that you are, if you do not provide solid argumentation and evidence you will lose my ballot. 3) Be civil!