Chenoweth,+Trevor

Chenoweth, Trevor Dartmouth College, Damien High School Years Judging: 2 Rounds on this topic: <5 Last Updated: 4/28/10


 * A little background:** I’m a second year debating at Dartmouth and I debated for 4 years in high school for Damien. Haven’t judged many rounds on this topic but I’m familiar with many of the arguments, but maybe not some of the acronyms etc.

I love evidence. Good evidence is better than more evidence. Well-explained evidence is better than either. I think it’s somewhat silly to give a team arguments that are in their evidence but which were never explained or mentioned in the debate except by saying something like “this is wrong, prefer our X evidence.” This does not mean that I won’t call for evidence and read it closely, it just means it’s going to get you much farther when I read it if you know what it says too.
 * General**: As most would say, I’m open to virtually any argument that you can justify. I don’t think there’s any situation where you should consider changing your strategy because I’m judging you. I do think there are situations in which you might want to consider explaining your arguments more in-depth or slightly differently, however. But for the most part I’m going to work hard to eliminate any biases I might have.


 * Kritiks/Criticisms**: As far as the “K judge” or “policy judge” thing - I’m fine with either. I mostly read policy arguments in high school but not exclusively. I go for both relatively evenly in college. I prefer well-explained, specific links and aff answers. You should know that while I don’t really have a bias against these arguments I’m not necessarily going to understand all of the jargon. Instead, analogies and a bit of slowing down and using some explanation/persuasion, even earlier in the debate than usual, will give you good mileage.


 * Other Substantive Args**: If there’s something that I like more than other things it’s a good case debate and/or case-specific strategy that is clearly well thought-out. I’m not as much of a fan of the throw everything we’ve got out there and see what sticks strategy, just because usually the result is a poorer debate. However, I believe in time trade-offs and enjoy well-debated less specific strategies too.


 * Topicality**: I think I’m pretty reasonable on T. I don’t really like cheap shot type arguments. My personal belief is that topics should be limited and the aff should read a topical plan and defend its implementation but I’m perfectly willing to be told I should think otherwise as long as there are some good arguments and probably some evidence to support it. I will say that I think limits arguments are stronger than ground arguments any day of the week.


 * Debate Theory**: As everyone says, heavy use of blocks here make these a bit too fast and unclear. If I don’t hear or understand some argument that is “dropped” and you’re staking the whole debate on it I won’t hesitate in giving the other team a lot of leeway. I think I’d describe myself as reasonable when it comes to most counterplan theory etc. Whenever you’re theoretically defending a counterplan if you can make the argument that you have a specific solvency advocate/it’s in the aff’s literature you should. Again, not a big fan of cheap shots but obviously the debate will determine whether or not an argument should be considered cheap.

Always be thinking about the end-game. By that I mean I want you to be always telling me why you should win – AKA – how I should evaluate the debate. Not only which impacts are bigger/faster/more likely but also specific comparisons and relationships between impacts and whether magnitude is more important than timeframe etc.
 * Lastly…**

Have fun, be reasonably respectful.