Stewart,+Dwight

Dwight Stewart

Summary: 6 years experience (since 2008-2009) in a mix of local and national tournaments. On the continuum between NFL and circuit norms, much closer to circuit norms. Basically my heart is with the circuit norms, though I can only judge up to about 75-80% of circuit speed. Experience: M.A. Mathematics (University of Michigan, 1980) B.A. Computer Science and Mathematics (Anderson University - 1978) [Note this means I have some background in both good and bad logic!]

6 years high school judging - Mostly Lincoln-Douglas, plus some Public Forum outrounds when needed 0 years high school debate/coaching - (entered the debate world as a parent, not a participant) 0 years college debate/coaching

2013-2014 Rounds Judged: 8 as of September 2013 2012-2013 Rounds Judged: 50+ thru March 2013 (Includes local tournaments, 1st/2nd yr GFCA State, GFCA Varsity State through semi-finals, and Woodward 1st/2nd year Nat'ls through octo-finals) 2011-2012 Rounds Judged: ~20 (busy w/ new job) 2010-2011 Rounds Judged: 50 (Local Georgia tournaments, GA Varsity State, Emory Barkley Forum and NFL Nationals) Mostly LD, with occasional PF, IE when needed 2009-2010 Rounds Judged: ~20 (local Georgia tournaments) Mostly LD 2008-2009 Rounds Judged: ~20 (local Georgia tournaments) More PF than LD

General: The most important part of LD debate for me is the logical argument between you and your opponent. Speech/Forensics norms of standing straight, making eye contact, dressing nice are -not- important to me. I ignore loaded / emotional language in LD, but look for "compelling" language in my PF rounds. Arguments with little to no evidence and lots of verbal analytics haven't been doing that well with me. I will be looking at impacts. Logical argument includes anything (legal) you want to do. I've picked up debaters with Hunger Games plans for juvenile delinquency and Texas secession for retribution vs. rehab, so be clear on your voters and you should be ok. Speed: I have no personal animosity to speed - I basically view it as data-compression. I just have limitations in flowing very high-speed cases, so I generally ask debaters to back it down to around 80%. If you're very clear, and your speed creeps up during your AC/NC, you should be ok. Kritiks: Some traditional judges have a chip on their shoulder in regards to kritiks. I do not. It’s logical argument, it’s perfectly within the boundaries of the LD art form. Coaches and judges should include the K in their thinking, as I've seen debaters who had never even been told what a kritik was by their coach and were completely at a loss as to how to handle one (they lost).

Value and Criterion/Standard Debate: Tell me what to judge you by, and then follow through with explicit links between your constructive and your framework. That's the other side of tabula rasa - if you don't fill in the blank, it's still blank, as I won't fill it in for you.

Thanks for reading, hope to see you in round.

Regards, Dwight