Marlow,+Eric

University of Central Oklahoma

Experience: 18 years of judging CEDA and NDT

I am mostly a rule of the game critic. I find that in about eighty percent of the rounds that I judge, someone fails to connect the dots on the flow and I am forced to vote against them. So you should know that I do flow and that many of my decisions are based upon what I write on those pages.

In the rounds where everyone connects the lines on the flow, I try to evaluate the arguments based on the evidence presented. I will read cards to try and make sense of the debate. I will evaluate evidence based on its depth and credibility in comparison to the other team’s evidence.

I want you to feel free to construct any paradigm that you feel comfortable debating. Nothing is out of bounds but the time limits of the debate. We can argue about the nature of the activity, the power of fiat, the legitimacy of voting issues, or we can have a substantive debate about the topic. I give you the academic freedom to construct your arguments, and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and with an open mind.

Issues: I am frequently pidgeonholed as a member of the kritikal part of the community, but my background is mostly policy. The K debates I see typically revolve around the alternative/permutation debate. As far as policy rounds, I love a good case hit and specific disads are a bonus. I do my best to fairly evaluate performance rounds. Sometimes these rounds make me feel that I am just shooting in the dark because there is so little discussion of evaluative frameworks, but I promise to try my best to relate to and understand your argument.

Stylistically, I enjoy a fast debate with good comparisons. I also enjoy some good rap and poetry. I do not enjoy debates where people are rude and mean to each other. You can be aggressive, but being rude to the other team or your partner, really diminishes my enjoyment of the activity. Have as much fun as you want, but be nice to me and each other. Peace.