Roberts,+Medgar

Judging Philosophy Statement J. Medgar Roberts  ** Personal Statement: ** I am a relapsed debate junkie. In fact, I have been in and out of debate for longer than you guys debating now have been on the planet. I debated CX four years in high school in Georgia where I traveled the national circuit and did pretty well. I also debated in college for four years and did fairly well there, too. When I graduated I coached for another twelve years at three schools: Hart County High School, Charlotte Latin School and Duncanville High School. My teams generally (say it with me) did pretty well. We won some state championships, qualified for Nats a few times and qualified for the TOC a few times in CX. My LD debaters weren’t quite as successful—that wasn’t my specialty—but I coached it enough to understand it on a rudimentary level. I “retired” from (read: quit) coaching four years ago and I now teach English full time while I work on my doctorate in Educational Technology. I say all of this to let you know that I am not new to the game. I started debating before the kritik was born and continued for a long time after that. I used to be able to handle speed, but I have been out of the game for a while; it may take me some time to acclimate myself once more and get my flow up to snuff. Clarity and projection are important to me, though; I have lost 50% of my hearing in my right ear. If you are not clear I will not hear you. I cannot vote for what I cannot hear. Decision Calculus: I am not tabula rasa. I reserve the right to be intelligent. That said, I want to vote based on what is said in the debate. I will always vote for a good argument over a bad one and I will not vote for bad arguments even if they are dropped. I can flow, however—please don’t try to put one over on me. Ultimately, debate is a communication activity. In a perfect world, I will vote for the debater(s) that most clearly and concisely support their arguments in the debate. I hate having to vote for mishandled arguments and I despise having to enter the debate and vote on what I think. If I make a decision based on something that wasn’t said in the debate I will be angry and speaker points will express my displeasure. I don’t have to buy your argument just because you said it, nor do I have to vote on an unimportant argument simply because it was dropped. If you want me to vote on a dropped argument you must appropriately impact that argument to get my attention. I want debaters to articulate concisely why I will vote for them in the debate. If you want me to judge in a certain paradigm, please take the time to put me in that paradigm; be sure to tell me why I should be there. I prefer offensive argumentation with clear decision calculus over defensive reasons why a debater “didn’t lose;” there is a big difference between winning a debate and not losing it. I don’t like to read evidence after the round is over. The only time I will ask for evidence after a debate is if the debaters ask me to read a card. I will not read all the evidence and re-debate the round, though. If I wanted to do that, I would debate myself. If you want me to read a card, tell me what I am looking for and why I should read it. Be prepared, though: I have high standards for evidence. If you bring me a card I will read the whole card, not just the part that you want me to read. Additionally, if you change the wording of the card or leave out relevant information that is in that card I will factor that amendment, emendment or omission in my decision. I prefer that you articulate the argument clearly in the debate in such a manner that I don’t have to read the card after the round. Once I start reading the evidence you never know what I am going to find. If you watch me occasionally when you are speaking you might be able to read what I think about your argumentation. I nod, smile, frown and even let you know when I have heard enough if you are looking up. I don’t have favorites—I’ll even vote against my brother if he loses the debate. If I am allowed to give an oral critique, I will. If not, I will try to be clear in my written RFD. I have gotten old and lazy, though; I don’t write the detailed specific RFDs on ballots anymore unless the debate is extraordinarily complicated. Besides, tournament directors don’t like to give me the time to do that anyway. They get cranky when I start running their tournaments behind. If I am allowed to give an oral critique I will turn my ballot in first and come back and talk to you. Keep notes appropriately. Specific Argument Considerations: I will vote for topicality if it is clear, well-reasoned and well-impacted. I don’t like kritiks much but I will vote for them if they are argued well. I prefer kritiks that have a unique link to the position rather than generic positions that apply to everything ever said. I am sympathetic to “wrong forum” argumentation in those cases. I will vote for counterplans, but CP debates get really messy very quickly. Keep that in mind when you are making your strategic choices. Special Considerations: I don’t like debaters that repeat “Judge” incessantly during the debate; that’s just bad form. Cross-examination is for argument clarification first and offense second. I don’t mind open cx as long as the person that owns that cx is at least involved. Again, this is a speaker point consideration for me. I want you to sign post for me before you speak, but if you abuse the sign posting time I will deduct it from your prep-time. If you don’t have prep time left and you abuse sign posting time I will deduct it from your speech time. I’m not so evil as to keep a clock running all the time, but let’s be reasonable. This is a leisure time activity. Let’s have fun and explore ideas in a friendly, laid-back manner. In my mind, this is an intellectual sparring match and I am the referee. As long as we fight clean and within the rules everyone will be happy. Have fun, play fair and take no prisoners.