Pons,+Brendan+(Bo)


 * __JUDGING PHILOSOPHY __**

__About Me __ I was a LD debater for Yankton High School. This is my fifth year as an assistant coach for the same school. For the past 6 years, I have attended the University of South Dakota as both a philosophy major in undergrad and a law student.

First off, I will always evaluate the debate round in front of me. If the round forces me to vote one way, I will vote that way. For instance, if the round comes down to value clash or a key contentional argument, that is where I will vote. A majority of these comments are purely preferences for what I enjoy to see in a round. For the purposes of this wiki, however, the general system I prefer to use while judging LD is as follows:
 * LD Philosophy **
 * 1) I first look to any Resolutional Analysis to determine burdens in the round and how the resolution should be interpreted.
 * 2) Then I look to the Value / Criterion framework. I want to see who has established the paramount value to achieve as well as the best criterion for weighing the round and/or measuring/achieving the value.
 * 3) Then I look to see how the arguments on the contention level work under the winning Value/Criterion Framework and if the better argument(s) affirm or negate the resolution.
 * It is possible that a debater can win the Value and Criterion Framework and still lose the round if the other debater successfully debates under the winning framework.
 * However, if a debater’s case has a tight connection between the Value/Criterion and the other arguments in case, the debater who wins the Framework should win the round.

__Framework __ I feel as if a value and criterion are required components of a LD case, a value even more so than a criterion. LD is distinct from policy by the simple fact that it is a “value debate.” While I will not strictly vote against a debater for lacking a value, I will significantly appreciate a debater raising this issue against a case that lacks a value. If a debater without a value wants to defend against this assault, a clear alternative framework needs to be provided. If a case lacks only a criterion, I still need a standard, whether separate from or inherent in the value, to either measure, weigh, or achieve the value. Simply put, LD should not be a debate about competing impacts or issues without some, preferably a value (/criterion), framework.

As has been stated before, and will be said later, arguments that are clearly connected with the (V/C) framework carry significantly more weight than arguments without any framework grounding.

__Value Debate __ Debating the value is essential to a LD debate, in my mind. Rounds that ignore the value debate are the rounds I enjoy the least. I will grant a debater the value/criterion framework on one measly argument if the opposing debater completely ignores this facet of the debate.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">From the perspective of proposing a value, as opposed to attacking it, some justification for why the value is “valuable” and how it relates to the resolution is needed. This justification cannot be simply “the resolution says moral (or just/justified/justice) therefore we must value morality (or justice) because the resolution says so.” <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">I used to be ok with the value of Morality, but have been developing the opinion that you cannot value morality, but you value what morality creates. Morality and ethics, in a sense, are judgments about certain actions, and you cannot value mere judgments.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Also, I think morality and justice are two different normative categories so I would like a substantial explanation on why they are the same if that is your case strategy.

__<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Delivery style __ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Mechanically, I feel as if LD needs to be the middle ground of speed: nothing close to a policy pace, but not a sluggish conversational style. I will not vote against one for speed; however, I will vote against a debater for not being a clear speaker when trying to speed.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Also, the use of LD jargon is acceptable while policy jargon (i.e. solvency, impacts, etc.) should be kept to a minimum.

__<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Argumentation __ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">When you pull something across the flow or cross-apply something, provide sufficient analysis why it matters. Make it more than just a line on my flow of the round. Minimal, yet sufficient, analysis for cross-application or extending will always carry more weight than cross-applications and extensions with an absence of explanation. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Crystallization and voting issues should be given at the end of the debate. Voters down the flow are ok as long as they are clearly identified as voters.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Explain how your arguments relate with one another. As my high school debate coach and a law professor always said, “Tell me the story.” For example, tell me how certain cards, analytical, or statistics affect the round, namely the value and criterion.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">In general, make the argumentative connections for me. There are too many times where I can see an easy connection that could win the round for the debater, but the debater fails to flesh that argument out causing me to vote against the debater. I do my best to not do the work for the debater on the flow.

__<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Theory / A priori __ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">I am not a fan of theory debate. Debate about debate seems pointless to me. If a debater is imposing extra-resolutional burdens, just simply mention that it is not a burden according to the resolution. Unless the abuse is severe, don’t run theory.