Halydier,+Garrett

Garrett Halydier – Judging Philosophy

Experience: Four year debater with Liberty University. Second year as a college judge and coach at Liberty Sixth year as a high school judge. Judged this topic previously and taught at the Liberty Debate Institute.

General Philosophy: Debate is a game and arguments are tools to win. Plans must be topical, and topicality is not a reverse voting issue. Kritik’s are a useful debate tool when they have a policy alternative, but I am not the best judge for a performance or personal advocacy which I feel harm the “game” aspect of debate, and under my interpretation of debate, potentially trivialize the advocacy by making it simply a tool to win.

Argument Preferences: T, DA’s, CP’s, Case, and K’s T and Theory: It must have an interpretation, and reasonability requires a counter-interpretation so I know what to be reasonable about. T is not a reverse voting issue, it is not genocidal, and ground could probably access all of the other standards.

DA’s: Run them, but please not stupid ones that don’t link. Politics and Biz-con are well received.

CP’s: Conditional, unconditional, PIC, whatever – and as long as the CP is competitive – i.e. answer the perm – the CP is usually theoretically safe. CP’s should be debated on their net-benefits and solvency potential. Perms, especially clever perms, are good arguments – unless they are amorphous, unexplainable and turn out to be Do the CP. CP and DA is a great strategy for the 2NR

Case: Case defense and case turns can be an integral part of every debate, and winning a DA and case turns can definitely be a reason to vote neg. Affs: Ans case – it is your most vital property

K’s: Critical arguments that undermine or question the assumptions of the plan are fine if they have a policy alternative that requires an action different from the plan. Much like permutations, amorphous alternatives are anathema to my view of debate. Performance debaters and personal advocates: policy debate is good, debate bad arguments are counterintuitive, fiat does not actually exist but it is an exercise of our imagination that allows us to argue intelligently about possible futures.

Other tidbits:

Organization is great: the line-by-line only helps Analyze the cards for me: I may read them after round but I don’t believe I should have to 1AR Disco: Sometimes fun but gets old real quick, and it requires a heck of a lot of judge work, though a fine strategy in the case of the rare emergency.