Coven,+Robert

Cary Academy, NC

I will reward debaters on the basis of their ability to communicate effectively. A failure to communicate effectively is a basis for deciding the round independent of any other considerations. Once both debaters have met that baseline criterion, then and only then will I begin to evaluate arguments substantively. Speaking too quickly, attempting to make more arguments then can be effectively explained in the allotted time, and trying to insert arguments that do not relate directly to the question posed by the resolution are all things I consider to be failures to communicate effectively. Debaters who provide a narrow and focused approach to the topic, whose arguments are clearly and directly linked backed to the subject of the sentence and who engage their opponent’s analysis in a substantive manner will be most successful. Debaters will be rewarded for taking a clear and coherent position and defending it consistently throughout the debate. Conditional arguments and kicking arguments in the middle of the debate will not be received kindly. Making less arguments to begin with and actually defending them rigorously is a much more strategic approach.

I will take notes, but I am not a flow judge. Arguments are won by engaging with the substance of your opponent’s position, not by attempting to make more arguments than your opponent can answer. If an original argument is stronger than the response made against it, the response will not be privileged simply because the other debater does not directly respond to it, especially if the failure to respond is a result of a large number of arguments made by the opponent.

I find the traditional value premise and criterion structure to be an extremely poor form of argumentation and feel that clash over these are usually artificial and do little to help address the actual issues at stake in the resolution. Arguments that are clearly and explicitly linked to the specific terms in the resolution (in this case-rehabilitation, retribution, and the criminal justice system) will be given greater weight than standards that are not directly related to the objects being evaluated in the resolution. If evidence does not explicitly reference the objects of evaluation in the resolution it will be viewed very skeptically as a basis for deciding the framework for evaluating the round.

I am not a fan of theory debates at all. If debaters are engaging in abusive or unfair practices feel free to point this out, but as the judge I will be the ultimate decider of when that has occurred and will vote down debaters who do so regardless of whether the opponent makes an issue of it if I believe it has unfairly advantaged one of the competitors.

I believe in using the full range of speaker points, and reserve the highest points for debaters who are both analytically outstanding but also display exemplary public speaking skills during the debate.