Paulsen,+James+(Jim)

I debated in college during the early to mid-1970s and coached or assisted for a couple of years afterwards. I now teach law. As of April 2011, I’ve judged “modern” debate at about a dozen tournaments this academic year, mostly L-D.

I strive to be a tabula rasa judge, in the sense that I do not consciously favor debaters who share my personal views about debate theory, favorite philosopher or most anything else. I prefer to listen to debaters debate the resolution, but will vote on framework if given a good reason to do so. For example, I think most kritiks are easily defeated, but I will (and have) voted for the approach when the affirmative doesn’t actually make a winning argument — on their own, in the round. Even in rounds in which theory is not an issue, I appreciate hearing what arguments you think are most important, and why I should prefer your position.

One idiosyncracy: When deciding which way my vote – aff or neg -- will trigger an inevitable nuclear holocaust most quickly, it helps to know something about the person making that statement other than “Smith, ‘02." I’ve published a few articles, but that alone doesn’t make me an expert on nuclear deterrence. So if the debate comes down to a choice between two or three crucial cards, I’m willing to add source credibility into the calculus if asked.

As to speed, I can take a pretty good flow of a fast round if necessary, though it’s not my idea of a fun time. Don’t worry if I’m just listening and not writing at points. I have a poor long-term memory, but a good short-term memory. If I can summarize what you’re saying by jotting a few key words on the flow, I can remember the details long enough to make a competent decision. Six hours later, it might be a different story. So if you want me to explain a decision you don’t like, and the ballot doesn’t make things clear, it’s better to ask sooner than later.

One warning on speed: I can’t mentally process philosophy and debate theory as quickly as facts and figures. (Nor, I think, can most people.) As a rule of thumb, if the card contains words like Kant, Heidegger, or epistemology, it’s best to slow down a bit. Also, I am only moderately familiar with current debate-speak. So if you routinely say things like PIC, perm, pomo or K, consider giving me a hint by using the whole word once or twice.