Harris,+Carolyn

Carolyn Harris

I am a practicing physician (internist) who was first introduced to High School Debate in my son's freshman year. I love judging Varsity LD, and have judged at several TOC bid and non-TOC bid tournaments.

__**Paradigm:**__ Truth-testing judge, and I will accept a comparative world view. I am very abstract--if you tell me "truth testing is destroying debate" and can back up your argument with warrants, I can accept that. In determining the truth of an argument, I believe that silence is consent. Unwarranted claims are fine, unless they are pointed out to be unwarranted by the opponent. Blippy arguments are voters for me, but are not the only determining factors in the round. The main determining factor in the ballot is how well each debater meets the standard or burden in the round.

__**Theory:**__ I view theory as a reasonability issue. If there is obvious abuse in a round, and it is pointed out by your opponent, I may vote you down. I consider time-suck theory shells abusive. If it is unclear if there is abuse, I am open to the two debaters to work it out in a theory debate. RVIs are fine. I am fine with any standard or voter in a theory shell that is supported/justified.


 * __Speed:__** At the beginning of the topic, I'll need you to go slower (up to 300-350 words per minute). Later in the season, spreading is fine. I can only vote off of what I can flow. I will say "clear", "slow down", "louder" if needed. Speed is fine in rebuttals. OK to spread the 1-AR.


 * __Speaker Points:__** Only if you are noticeably worse than your peers will I give you a 27, and only if you're excellent will I give you a 30. Almost everyone will get between the two. I will dock you points for swearing, distracting mannerisms. I will add points for good strategies, smart arguments, good responses to your opponent. I prefer eye contact during rebuttal rounds (don't read off cards for the entire debate). I have no objection to low point wins (or high point losses).


 * __Specific Arguments:__** I accept kritiks if the debater gets me to understand them, preferrably the first time it is presented. I accept plans and any impacts that are justified. Word PICs are low, but I'll go for them. Skep is fine.


 * __Burdens:__** I do not think the Aff nor the Neg has a burden of proof. I will allow that point to be debated, but it cannot be assumed.