St+Sauver,+Earl

Judging Philosophy

I debated for 3 years at South Eugene High School in Varsity LD and have coached/judged for four.

The 3 Second Version of the Paradigm I can flow, I can handle speed up to about policy level, and I'm Tab. I'm happy to yell clear if I can't understand you also.

I believe the round is fundamentally yours to debate and that the win ought to be determined in as tab a way as possible. I would avoid racist/sexist/other bad ist language and positions because then I may drop that debater if the harm is egregious enough. I am fine with Theory/Kritiks.

The quickest way to my ballot is to articulate why you win the round clearly. I try to avoid having to compare arguments myself because that inherently involves me interjecting my opinion, which means hopefully you will weigh for me.

Since I try to vote for the person who won the round regardless of the position/style/cleverness of their advocacy, I reserve speaker points to be my subjective tool. To get high speaker points either win very hard, have a really interesting, intelligent debate, or be funny. To get low speaker points, be mean or dumb. For lowest speaker points be mean and dumb!

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.