Cronin,+Rommy

Type in the content of your page here.
 * Romelle (Rommy) Cronin **
 * Sage Ridge School, Reno, Nevada **
 * Years judging/coaching ** : twenty-three
 * Rounds on this policy topic ** : 20
 * Rounds in LD: 10 **

**Background:** I competed in policy debate in high school and in CEDA in college. At that time CEDA was debating value resolutions, so I have debated policy and value debate. I also coached CEDA at the University of Nevada, Reno, for two years prior to coaching at the high school level for the past twenty years. In my coaching experience, I have coached LD, policy, PFD, and congress. Finally, I have taught the novice policy lab at the University of Texas Forensics Institute (UTNIF) the last three summers.

In all debate events, debaters should feel free to argue whatever they want in front of me. I believe that debate is a game and judging is about evaluating what is said in the debate in the context of the resolution. In making a decision, I will review my flow and then read evidence – in that order. If you think an argument is a round winner it should be in the debate, don’t assume I will vote on an argument extended in evidence only. I like the extension of specific warrants, not just tags or cites. Rebuttals need to be a time when you are deliberate and spin the debate like YOU are winning.

I will try to list my predispositions below. If you believe the debate or an argument should be evaluated differently make that part of the debate. If you win your framework I will evaluate the debate as such. If you do not argue a framework, I will default to policy maker in a policy debate.


 * Framework for Debate: ** I enter a policy debate believing that the affirmative should have a plan/advocacy statement. I assume that the debate should be viewed as imagining what would happen if the USFG were to do something related to the topic. The negative gets whatever the aff doesn’t do and should argue why the aff is a bad idea or present a competing policy option/alternative. I default to evaluating both policy options and alternatives in the world of fiat. Of course, if you win reasons why I should use some other lens to evaluate your arguments I will shift to that framework.

In LD, I come from the perspective that the resolution needs to be proven or disproven. The resolution creates the framework by which the debate must occur. Definition of terms, criteria, and value are all important in setting the framework in LD.

I am open to different interpretations of what it means to be affirmative/negative just be aware of how I default. I do not assume that the debate round is a good forum for social change/activism, etc. If your position relies on this belief, you should be prepared to make that argument and give warrants for it in the debate.


 * Topicality: ** I think topicality is important. I will evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations unless it is argued otherwise in the debate. I do expect time to be spent on topicality for it to be a voter. I look for standards and an explanation of why aff does or does not meet the standards. I also expect topicality to be extended as a voting issue and want to know why it is a voting issue. In LD I have a very high standard for in round abuse.


 * Theory: ** My default on theory is that it is a reason to reject the argument not the team. If you think it is a voting issue, say that and give me a good reason. If a theory argument is dropped I will vote on it as long as you give me a reason why the other team does what you say is bad.


 * Critical Arguments: ** Don’t expect I know as much as you do – take the time to explain the kritk or your criteria. I am much more likely to vote for a kritik that is specifically applied to the affirmative with reasons why it would turn the aff or why the aff would not solve. Along the same lines, I like specific alternatives – while I will vote for a “reject the aff” alt, the nebulousness of such a statement gives the aff leverage to weigh the affects of the affirmative against the alternative, reducing the likelihood that I would vote negative in a world where I think the aff might still be solving.

I default to evaluating alternatives in the world of fiat, i.e. imagining what would happen if the alternative were to happen. That means that affs should not let negatives get away with abusive alts and negatives should be prepared to articulate reasons why the permutation doesn’t solve the link. If you think that some other framework for evaluating the alternative vs. the plan, you should make that part of the debate.


 * Counter-plans/Disadvantages ** : In PIC/Disad debates I will default to evaluating based on offense and defense. I rarely see any good reason to vote on defense to a disad alone, unless you make good reasons why the case outweighs – that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. Again, if you think I should use some other framework, make reasons why offense/defense assessment is bad, I will adapt my evaluation accordingly if you win the arguments on framework.


 * Speed: ** Speed is an issue in that I am not able to flow as quickly as I used to and I need to be able to capture the arguments made in the debate. On a scale of 1 to 10 for speaking speed, with 10 being the quickest speakers, I can probably flow about a 5. If you want me to vote on what was said in the debate, you need me to flow the arguments. I will shout “clear” if I am having trouble flowing the debate.


 * Speaker point issues ** : Don’t be rude to your opponents or your partner. Don't steal prep. Try to relax and have fun; we all participate in this activity because we ENJOY it!