Buis,+Pauline

Judging Paradigm – Pauline Buis Forensics Coach, Niceville High School, Niceville, FL Coaching & Judging in 12th year


 * Paradigm.** No it's not a myth--I am tabula rasa. Albeit, I am a coach and do have knowledge of the topic so I'm not a blank slate in that regard, but I assure you that I am objective and will base my "verdict" only upon what is presented in the round. I will have no preconceived idea of which side, AFF or NEG, will or should win; I will assume a position which AFF or NEG can win with equal propensity.


 * Standards.**
 * I like to hear established **burdens, values and value criterion**. In the best rounds, burdens are agreed upon by both debaters.
 * Debaters should uphold their values. If values are the same, one that convinces that it best upholds and applies to resolution wins. Value criterion comes into play to measure value especially if both sides have the same value.
 * There has to be **clash.** The best arguments are the ones found to be the most logically compelling. The best debater wins. This is not an IE event. You don't have to be the best orator to win, but it does make the debate more interesting.
 * **Noninterventionist**--if a debater says something I know is wrong, BUT the opponent doesn't know it, and concedes it, I will not let myself or my brain intervene and give the point to the opponent who misguidedly conceded it. Likewise, if I hear a contention and can think of a great argument against it, but the opponent comes up with a pretty lousy argument, I have to follow what is actually said rather than what should have been said--nonintervention as it should be by all judges.
 * ** Drops ** happen--not so much in varsity as with novice--but I do realize that it is difficult to address every point in limited time especially in the 1AR. Group points together and don't fret to cover every 202 trillion sub points. (I've tried a million times not to exaggerate.) If the original debater stands in the next speech and points out a drop, the contention must stand for the original debater; the debater who first made the statement wins that statement. However if the point is dropped and the original debater does not cite it, then it just disappears from the round. Neither can bring that subject up again. Once a point has been dropped, it cannot be revived. That's the game of drops.
 * The end of the 2NR and the 2AR should be **prioritization** of the arguments and clarification of the main issues of the round. This is where the burden comes in. The 2-3 well developed arguments should be explained in terms of how they help you meet your burden. I am much more likely to vote on **substantive issues** anyway.
 * **Crystallization points, voting issues**, are appreciated, but **DO NOT power through the line-by-line at the end of the round.**
 * **Ad hoc voting issues:** if during cross both debaters agree that whoever wins this or that specific point wins, it is perfectly acceptable in LD and clarifies my job as a judge. I will have to give the round to whomever does best what the two debaters agreed to have done.
 * **Bottom line**: the side who makes the best argument and convinces me thusly wins.


 * Theory.** Engage in debate on the actual topic.e.g. I don't want to hear that juries ought to nullify because cats & dogs (felines & canines) can't speak for themselves. If I’m not flowing, you should probably be explaining. I prefer evidence over pragmatic analysis. If your argument seems ridiculous, I will turn off my prejudices--tabla rasa--recall, but I will not disengage my brain.


 * Spread.** NO thank you. Unless you want a career as a reader of disclaimers at the end of pharmaceutical drug ads on TV or aspire to be an auctioneer, I prefer typical conversational style. You know the adage: "Stand up to be seen, speak up to be heard ...." Traditionalist, conversational tone and rate of delivery does weigh in decision. If I cannot follow your case, I cannot judge it.


 * Speaker Points.** I like to judge LD (and PF) and promise you will get my best judgement; therefore, I am a point princess. Typical speaker point range 28-30. Average 29.

Show respect to your opponent and for the activity. Though my decision will be based solely on the arguments and evidence presented, professional decorum is expected.