Walsh,+Tim

Hi. I'm a 2-year out judging for Trinity Prep.

I debated competitively for four years and considered myself a progressive debater; something that I think affects the way I judge as well. I have not judged any rounds on this year's TOC topic; for the last two years, I have been exclusively judging Florida Blue Key and local tournaments, as I haven't had the time to go out of the state.

As far as what I'm looking for in a round, I'm a pretty open judge who tries to the best of my ability to be a complete noninterventionist. I will judge every round entirely on the flow, and will consider every argument that is presented in the round, as long as: (1) I can hear it (speed is okay, but you have to be coherent), and (2) you as a debater explicitly tell me what to do with the argument in terms of weighing and how the argument operates within the round. The one thing I will not do as a judge is make a link or weigh your arguments for you.

If you want something to matter at the end of the round, it must be explicitly presented early enough in the round and cleanly extended. A clean extension means that you: (1) thoroughly take care of any defense or offense your opponent put against your argument and (2) restate the claim, warrant, and impact. Saying "There are no responses, extend _____" means nothing to me when I'm evaluating the round.

I have no theoretical problems with speed. In a round with two intelligent and well-prepared debaters, I think speed actually has the potential to make the round more interesting. That said, I have been out of the circuit for two years working and going to school with very little interaction with competitive debate. I will try to flow as fast as I can, but no promises. Clarity on the debaters' part will make this much easier for both parties involved, as I will definitely be able to flow and remember your arguments more clearly. If one or both debaters in a round attempt to go faster than they can clearly speak at, it will have an effect on speaker points. Incoherent fast rounds tend to get muddy and force judges into a more subjective position than I want to be in after the round is over.

Feel free to run any kinds of arguments you want as far as critical theory, critiques, and theory debate goes. I'm fairly well-read in most of the critical theory that entered the LD world while I was debating, and am of the opinion that critical argumentation can be very poignant and thought-provoking if the debater has actually read what they are running from a primary source and understands it well. If you do a thorough job explaining how something is true and why it matters, I will listen.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Tim Walsh