Lawrence,+Ryan

Edited 3/28/13 for NDCA Nationals.
I am a former national circuit coach now pursuing my law degree. The only other tournament that I judged at this year was Apple Valley and I have judged no rounds on this topic. I'm familiar with the topic area, but may be unfamiliar with popular "catch phrases" to describe arguments on the circuit.


 * __Short Version__:** I'll evaluate whatever arguments you make (including theory, etc.), I am okay with speed as long as you are comprehensible, and have a bias (that I try to avoid, but must admit) for more real-world/politically relevant arguments over the abstract.


 * __Long Version__:**
 * Substance **

//1)// I take a very "tab" approach to evaluating topical arguments in the round. Non-intervention does not mean non-evaluation. I feel that it is my duty as a judge to compare the quality of arguments made by both teams. It is unlikely that a single sentence can do the legwork of proving or disproving the entire resolution and I would have to suspend not just my biases but my sense of reasonability to think otherwise. As such, I expect you to make good arguments on the substantive level and will evaluate them as objectively as possible.

//2)// I have a measurable bias in favor of arguments/positions that are more "real world" or "politically relevant." For example, I am more interested in the pragmatic effects of rehabilitation (recidivism rates, rights of the prisoners, etc.) than I am in an abstract discussion of determinism, and am probably more easily persuaded that the former is more important than the latter. I am even less interested in generic ethics arguments (e.g. moral skepticism) that are completely divorced from the reo=solution. I do my best to not allow my biases impact debates, but feel I should be open about them.


 * Theory**

I always have and still do view theory as being a necessary and desirable practice in order to maintain quality debates. However, I also view the phenomenon of theory subsuming the eniterty of a debate round as undesirable (generally speaking) and recognize that theory debates are creating interesting (read: difficult) situations for the debaters answering theory. To that end, I have attempted to develop a paradigm that embraces the best parts and rejects the worst parts of theory debates.

//1)// I consider myself a judicial skeptic on theory. The burden of proof lies on the side of the unintuitive side of the theory debate, and the less intuitive the interpretation, the higher that burden becomes. E.G. You are free to run a conditional CP in a 5 speech event, but proving its theoretical desirability will be far more difficult than defending more reasonable practices.

//2)// In most cases theory should probably be a reason to drop the argument/practice, not the debater. I am obviously willing to listen to drop the debater arguments, but they will be held to a higher standard. Keep in mind that this does not apply to topicality in its true form, but T is a very muddy issue in LD.

//3)// I do not require as much development for theory arguments as most judges in LD seem to. E.G. I think that it is assinine to have to justify that ground is important in terms of fairness; that seems quite obvious to me. I enter the debate under the assumption that fairness and education matter and that unfair/uneducational practices are undesirable.


 * Speaks**

I scale my speaks to the quality of the tournament and a 30 means that you did as well as the hypothetical best debater at the tournament would have done if in your shoes. An inflated speaker point scale provides a disservice to the best debaters at the tournament. My average is probably a 26.5. Debaters of the caliber that break at circuit tournaments probably average about a 28.5. I do reward/penalize speaker points for effective use of speed or lack thereof.

As always, please feel free to ask questions, and have fun!