Fisher,+Kate

This is my 3rd year judging LD debate. I also judge PF and Speech. My work background is in education.....I have taught every subject to every age. Related to debate, I taught Civics and my undergraduate degree was in Soviet and East European politics with an emphasis on Political Theory from Davidson College.

Because I taught civics to high school students, I can be completely objective. This extends beyond my personal beliefs, obviously, to the structure of the debate as well. While I understand the construction of Lincoln Douglas Debate, I don't believe it is limited by its structure. And I am not interested in the structure as much as I am the content, and the evidence of thought. What will win a debate in my room is a combination of creativity, philosophical underpinnings to your arguments, and how accurately you sized me up as you argue to me. And I mean argue to me. Convince me. It isn't an exercise in impressing your opponent, your coach, your team or yourself. You did the work, you know the arguments. Your job is to convince me.

I prefer LD debate, even when the resolutions are sloppy, to be argued through philosophy......through the philosophical underpinnings of the political question at hand. I am mostly disinterested in evidence and cards except as they relate to support of the case you are presenting. So bring on the Kant, the Locke, the Rousseau, the Mills, the Hobbes, the Rawls, and the rest of them. Do something daring. Be passionate. Make me think so hard you can see me thinking. Surprise me. Make me see that you wrestled with the resolution.

Speed is not much of an issue, although if you are running a complicated constructive, you would do well to give me, and all judges, enough time to get your key points that can be lost even if you think you catch it in the flow.

Be respectful to your opponent, the material, and to me.

I love judging, and I love being challenged. Bring it.