McCampbell,+Robert

Robert McCampbell's Policy Debate Judging Paradigm

Affiliation/Experience: I debated high school policy for two years (2004-2006). This is my third year judging policy debate for Sibley.

Philosophy: I’ve always seen the main purpose of debate as being education. Therefore well-formed and logical arguments that best contribute to this end are always preferred.

Case/DA’s: Given that I judge policy debate, it is these policy arguments that I prefer in round. DA’s and case should constitute the majority of the round unless instead providing an adequate amount of time on theory of K’s. From my experience, rounds that consist of case and DA’s tend to be clearer, more logical, and provide better clash and debates. Because the purpose of debate is education, these arguments are preferred though not necessarily required.

Topicality: Topicality, when run with sufficient attention, is on of the most useful arguments and will always get my full attention. However, unless the negative can show real evidence for potential abuse, in-round abuse must be proven.

Theory: Theory will require several minutes of argumentation for to be considered adequate. I do not hear many theory debates and therefore do not automatically know the specific philosophy of an author simply by hearing his name throw around. Theory arguments need sufficient and specific argumentation to be voted on.

Critiques: As with theory, K’s require a sufficient amount of argumentation over several minutes. Clear and specific explanations must be given. Do not assume that I’ve memorized your cards just because you have.

Speed/Performance: Speed is fine as long as there is no sacrifice of clarity or logic (these are among the most important factors when determining a particular arguments). Slower, more precise and purposeful arguments often do better. I’m largely unfamiliar with performance debate having never seen one and so should not be run in round.