Smith,+Orion

//Last modified 9/6/2005 10:59:27 AM//
 * Orion Smith**
 * Director of Debate 2001-present, Okemos HS (Michigan)**
 * Last year of HS debate: 1997**

I am an ex-college debater. Like many in the college debater crowd, that means I am going to be liberal about technique issues such as speed, prompting, tag-team cross examination, etc. Read the next paragraph for advice on what I will listen to.

I judge in a highly technical manner. That is to say, dropped arguments that are implicated strongly and extended into the final speeches constitute the major reason behind 70 plus percent of my decisions. This is the most valuable thing to understand about me as a judge, and it has several implications. First, I will vote for and have voted for dumb arguments, with full knowledge on the part of the debaters that I think they are dumb. Problem was, no one on the other team took time to call out the dumb argument. I will also vote for smart arguments; I prefer them, but will usually be amused instead of cranky should you cause me to vote for something dumb instead. My technical focus means I am unlikely to read many, if any, cards after the debate. Usually I will only read cards if the veracity of a claim made about the evidence is challenged. Therefore, telling me what was important about your evidence is very helpful. This technical style of judging can be adapted to other forms of debate/speech if you choose to go that route; I will do my best to keep track of what is going on and to evaluate it in a structured format. Be aware though that I am not going to immediately figure out the best structure for what you are doing; suggestions are helpful. Though I rely on my flow so heavily to judge the debate round, there are certain human limits on what I can write. 10 analytical arguments in a row (think: theory debate) read at evidence speed and you can bet that I will not be able to fully reconstruct your speech. That said, I do flow pretty fast. A final note about flowing speed: I try hard to avoid this, but it's inevitable that the more interesting your arguments or presentation are, the better attention I will pay to you and the better my flow will be as a result.

The other 30 percent of the time, I will likely vote on such issues as who more persuasively weighed the debate, or who gave the better story behind their advocacy/against their opponent's. Debates are complex things, so marshalling your strategy into one or more cohesive units can be very productive. Weighing, storytelling, and strategy cohesion are traditional priorities during the last two speeches. I agree with the wisdom of those particular traditions.

There is only one thing big enough on my list of don'ts to mention here: don't clip cards. If you submit a piece of evidence for myself or the other team to read, ensure that everyone agrees on what you read, and that it matches what you actually said in the speech. I may use various methods to enforce this policy on the debate, at my discretion. If you have read this paragraph then consider yourself warned; I will drop you very quickly if I am sure that you are cheating in this manner.

At all points during the debate I highly enjoy speakers who qualify as one or more of witty, clever, efficient, relevant, and communicative - the more of these that you can pull off the better. Have fun with it, too: I hold the activity of debate in very high regard and hope that it can consistently be an enjoyable and educational experience for all involved.

MIFA ADDENDUM: as a Michigan judge, I may judge you during the Novice or Varsity State series of events. When MIFA rules are enforced, I will follow them. You need to know though that not all MIFA rule violations are equal. Few of them are "voters" automatically for example. For many rule violations, the penalty is up to my discretion as a judge, which I find insufficiently precise. Therefore, should you wish to call the other team out for violating a rule, I expect that the penalty for that violation become part of the debate round itself. The other team may win as a form of theory debate that your suggested punishment does not fit the crime, in which case a lesser punishment or none at all might be employed by me. Or perhaps you will win a ridiculously overpowered penalty for a small violation. This method to me represents a way of using the MIFA rules to advance the goals of the activity.

Feel free to ask me questions if this philosophy is not comprehensive enough for you, but I am confident that reading it carefully will yield answers to most of your questions.