Klida,+Parick

Judging Philosophy –Patrick Klida

Due to time constraints most of this philosophy was taken from Garrett Abelkop

I debated for three years at Eisenhower High School and am two years into my debate career at Michigan State University.

I do my best to resolve the central questions of the debate using the arguments that are supplied by both teams. I try not to intervene and will stick to the flow as much as possible. I will read evidence after a debate, but it is better when the warrants of specific cards and arguments are developed throughout the round.

I have not judged many debates on this years high school topic and it may be necessary to make sure that I understand the intricacies or distinctions that you think are important. Although I did judge a lot of camp debates I hope the topic might have evolved some.

Topicality – I tend to lean affirmative on topicality in general. I find myself persuaded by developed reasonability arguments, and I evaluate topicality debates based on the predictable ground available under both sides’ interpretation of the resolution. This does not mean that I will not vote on topicality, rather, it means that the negative should impact their limits/predictability/fairness claims and weigh them against the reasonability claims of the affirmative.

Theory – I give the negative a lot of leeway on most theory questions (like conditionality or PICs), but I can see myself voting on theory if it is adequately developed and there are warranted reasons why a particular theoretical objection warrants rejecting the other team. Even if a theory argument is dropped, the burden of proof is on the team going for theory – not the other way around.

Kritiks – I tend to judge debates through a policy making paradigm. I am willing to evaluate the debate through a different framework – it is a debate to be had. I have become increasingly open to critical arguments. I'm more than willing to vote for the k and I think it is always a viable option. It is important for the negative to contextualize their link and impact arguments to the affirmative and to explain how the alternative is a sufficient remedy.

Counterplans and Disads – I evaluate these debates through an assessment of risk.