Devine,+Chris

School affiliation: I graduated from Roswell High School in Roswell, Georgia, and now I'm a Political Science (Emphasis in political Theory) and International Affairs (emphasis in International Relations and Security) double major at the University of Georgia. I've judged on the national circuit, beginning in 2011.

I have judged this year's topic in 2012, but I am still unfamiliar with certain acronyms, etc. It is something I believe to be fairly easy to define. Use your own judgement.

Real quick and simplistic things about me, but I do suggest reading the rest of this page: I love DA's and strategic CP's, hearing case arguments from the neg, and diversified neg strategies.

There are a couple major issues I tend to be question about. The first is Topicality:

Topicality – I mainly default to a Competing Interpretations Framework for Topicality, although if Reasonability is argued well. Generic blocks with no analysis will not win you the round. I need you to frame this argument contextually to the round. If you are the NEG, there needs to be some legitimate justification for why I should pull the trigger on T; there needs to be some impact story (fairness, education). What is the end all be all? Why does this precede other things in the round?

Next is the K: I am working towards political theory emphasis in my political science degree. I am very familiar with a lot of these authors, mainly through debating in high school. But, I tend to embrace the role as a policymaker. There needs to be some analysis of my role as a judge if you are to run a Critical argument. With the K, there needs to be a clear and coherent story, not just a jargon filled shell. There needs to be a legitimate reason to buy into an alternative; "reject the aff" doesn't quite provide a basis for any real discourse. Please be very familiar with what these authors are actually talking about and align your alternative with these author's actual viewpoints. A kritik in my opinion needs to be well developed to warrant my ballot. Finding specific instances from the 1AC is helpful to contextualize the Kritik to the round.

Theoretical Objections: Like T, this needs to be well explained. Generic and unanswered blocks are shallow arguments that require depth. There needs to be a legitimate abuse story, rather than some shady "potential abuse" argument. Critical theory needs to be developed especially well, along with framework. With CP theory, fairness is a critical internal link to me; fairness is the crux of debate where you can weigh your arguments successfully against each other. Fairness establishes a firm base to where it is easier to distinguish which arguments are more legitimate and convincing to win the round. Any questions on specific internal links, framing of education, ground, etc. you can ask me specifically before the round.

Politics - Please continue to update your politics file. This not only helps you, but it truly dictates uniqueness for the round. There's nothing I hate more than outdated politics files; to me, it defeats the purpose. I always gave the 2NR speech, and I probably went for this argument 80% of the time. I truly love this argument, and for whatever reason it never gets old to me.

I am a fairly flexible judge. I believe and appreciate in a diversity of arguments. It truly does make debate more unpredictable and entertaining. I can easily vote on most things in the round as long as they are fair and well developed.

In terms of paperless debate, please be efficient with it. I understand sometimes technology fights back. I have a strict system to where once you tell me to stop prep, I stop it. At that time, you need to have your flash drive in hand ready to put on a viewing computer or ready to give to your opponents. I trust you, but abuse of prep time or sloppy time management of paperless debate will hurt your speaker points. It looks unprofessional to me.

Finally, do not be overly dominating of anyone in the round. I appreciate respect for all debaters, no matter what experience or skill level. Besides that, please be clear, I debated myself and have heard hundreds of speeches. Speed is not an issue, but to the point where it disrupts the clarity of the round, it hurts your argumentative abilities. I will yell out if I cannot understand you, but please always have clarity and time management in mind when speaking. Long Kritik tags or theory arguments need to be slowed down to ensure I properly flow the depth you are trying to convey.

Best of Luck, Chris Devine