Dudley,+Jeremy


 * Jeremy Dudley | Mayde Creek High School '06 (Houston, TX) | University of Texas (Austin, TX) **

I debated on the local (TFA) and national (TOC) level for 4 years in high school Runner up at TFA State in 2006 and twice bubble round participant at the TOC in 2005 & 2006

I'm a physics & mathematics major who hasn't read any new philosophy since debate and was never an excessive student of contemporary philosophy. If you're presenting any philosophy that has "post" as a prefix choose your arguments and cases well, I like philosophy with clear tangible impact stories to the resolution and prefer individual analysis to a slew of cards. Nevertheless, I still consider myself "tabula rasa" (I think that's the term debaters like hearing) in that I am fully motivated to vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in the round, and I will interpret my decision calculus based on the agreements, concessions, or resolutions made by the debaters in the round and that can range from resolutional interpretation, acceptable philosophy, whatever you could think of (exception: irony). I was probably more interested in the gamesmanship of debate than the actual philosophy, so my judging style probably reflects that. I appreciate well developed arguments, but I don't think they matter unless the debater tells me specifically what they do for her or him in the round.
 * MY DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:**

At the end of the round, I'm going to go through the same process: What does the resolution ask? How do I adjudicate the question of the resolution? Are there any factors coming before that adjudication? Who meets that resolutional burden? Usually this means, "What's the standard or value criteria? Who is best impacting towards the standard?"
 * MY JUDGING PROCESS:**

I never liked guessing what assumptions certain judges had so I have a few that I'm very honest in disclosing.... if you feel otherwise, just convince me in round and I'd be up for a change, but this is what I walk into each round thinking: 1. The resolution is a truth statement and the wording/text of the resolution still calls for the affirmative to assign truth to it and the negative has to show the lack of truth of the resolution. 2. I adjudicate the truth value of arguments as they pertain to the hypothetical world presented by the resolution. Thus, theory and other critical arguments that question the NATURE of the debate would have to be justified. I assume that arguments made only address the nature of the resolution unless told otherwise. 3. Arguments "dropped" or not specifically addressed (idea or specific point in case) are generally wholly true unless they are something fallacious, and their correlating terminal impact as well. 4. Speaker points are assigned on the basis of whether your performance in the debate round is "out-round worthy" at the specific tournament at which you're competing (since that seems to be the only functional use of speaker points). Annoying debate is bad debate and is never out-round worthy, be respectful, I never agreed with rudeness being the trendy thing in debate. I'll vote for the rude debater, but I won't think it's out-round worthy, hint. I'll vote for the debater speaking 700 wpm but I won't like it and I don't think that debate is indicative of the talent required to succeed in out-rounds. So, be respectful, speak clearly, and your speaker points will be fine if you display good debate skills.
 * MY ASSUMPTIONS:**

If there's anything I've missed, let me know before the round and I can clarify. I'm open to discussions, disclosures, etc. -just ask.