Whitney,+Daniel

I was in Extemp in high school rather than debate, so I have no personal debating experience. However, I have judged LD many times since graduating in 2004, and feel pretty comfortable with the format. I judge less frequently now than I used to, however, so I would be careful with speed or using shorthand that you expect debaters to understand, as I may not be totally up on it.

Debaters love to ask about a judge's "paradigm." I hate answering this question, because I never really know what to say, but I'll try to describe my judging philosophy here. The way I see it, LD is a values debate. This means your value structure is key; I want to see a value criterion that clearly links back to the value premise you are trying to achieve. Sometimes debaters don't focus on this enough, and they end up picking a value criterion that has little or nothing to do with the premise. This is a major flaw in the argument.

I also dislike "spreading." I will not be impressed if you list 15 reasons attacking your opponent's argument if those reasons have no warrant. You will not convince me to extend those arguments simply because your opponent could not list and refute all 15 of them if you did not support them in the first place. On the other hand, if you give me a warrant and your opponent fails to respond, THEN you can point it out to me and I will extend it.

Also, in general a well-developed, coherent argument with fewer contentions will do better than a less coherent argument with more contentions. This is NOT a preference against more contentions; it is simply a warning to make sure they fit together well, and that you make sure to explain them clearly.

I have no inherent problem with "unconventional" or "strange" arguments. However, they are "strange" for a reason, in that they are pretty much always harder to explain and prove than more conventional ones. If you want to go somewhere "non-traditional" with your argument, that's your right and I will do my best to evaluate it, but most of the time when someone runs those arguments they simply wind up losing me (and therefore the round). Don't go with one of these unless you are confident that you know the material thoroughly and that you can explain it clearly. (I have voted for these arguments in the past and will do so again, provided they meet the criteria I just outlined.)

In case you find it relevant, I was a Political Science/Economics major in college, and I am currently a law student. If you discuss a theory or law or something that I know about personally, and you discuss it //incorrectly,// I will try not to let it influence my evaluation of the round unless your opponent calls you on it. That said, try to get things right.

I often dislike giving oral feedback at the end of rounds, not because I don't want to help debaters, but because it takes me awhile to gather my thoughts. I will write everything on the ballot; please don't get offended or read into it if I decline to give feedback. I also never disclose the winner of a round unless required to do so by the rules/practices of the tournament.

In closing, I don't think anyone should change their strategy in response to a specific judge. Go with the arguments you have prepped, and that you are comfortable with. However, I have put this information in my judging philosophy on the theory that more information is better, so use it as you see fit.