Hoffert,+Madeline

Judge affiliated with Southern Lehigh


 * General Approach **

The most important thing to keep in mind is I only judge a handful of circuit L-D tournaments each year, and I do not read up on debate-specific literature. Still, I competed in L-D for 3 years while in high school. What I'm trying to say is that I'm at the very least familiar with L-D, but I'm not always up on the latest trends and theory. If you run a particular framework or case structure, chances are, I do not know how I'm "supposed" to judge it. In general, you can run anything and I will listen to your argumentation, but your argumentation must explain and justify exactly why I should accept/reject whatever you're talking about.

Now, that in no way means I'll blindly accept an argument I know to be false. I will only judge you based on the arguments presented in round, but I am able to reason about what you're saying, and sometimes I'm already familiar with your warrants. I try to be as fair as possible about this: you're free to creatively interpret or extrapolate from your warrants, but I will not accept a blatant misinterpretation. Sometimes these misinterpretations happen by accident, and this is very unfortunate because the debater will go the entire round without realizing that they're wasting time arguing an interpretation of a warrant I've already rejected. To put it simply, I'm saying that I'll quickly accept interpretations of warrants I believe to be correct, but I'm very slow to accept ones I believe to be incorrect.


 * Specifics **

Resolutionality - I believe strongly in interpreting the resolution the way it was meant to be interpreted. I am not persuaded by arguments that abuse dictionary definitions to push narrow interpretations of the resolution. I also believe that the judge's role is to accept or reject the resolution based on the arguments provided. In general, all arguments should be directly linked back through to the resolution.

Extensions - I evaluate the round based on the impacts and voters that still stand at the end of the round, not based on how many points are extended. To extend an argument, you must at a minimum restate the argument (not just its signpost, although you should signpost too) and restate the impact of the argument. Whether or not you actually say the word "extend" is irrelevant to me.

Drops and Turns - I'll accept that an opponent "drops" an argument if they fail to address it. However, any drops you call out must be impacted. A "turn" is when an opponent's arguments contain a contradiction, either implicitly or explicitly. Turns must be impacted just like drops. Please, please do not call something a "turn" just because you feel you have a strong rebuttal to it or something along those lines.

Framework - You do not need a V/VC, but you do need to tell me at some point how I'm supposed to weigh the round. You need to do this early on so that your opponent has time to rebut your weighing mechanism. Winning the framework debate does not on its own win you the round or give you an advantage, because the framework is nothing but a way to weigh the rest of the arguments made.

Speed - I prefer a slower read, but am capable of keeping up with significant speed. However, if you cannot speak quickly without tripping over your words, I highly recommend that you slow down. The faster you speak, the more clear you need to be. If I can't follow your logic because you stuttered your way through all of your signposts and impacts, then tough cookies.


 * Misc. Stuff **

Signposting and Cards - Please, do not use the tags of your cards as signposts for your arguments; warrants can have implications beyond the original contention they're linked to, and arguments do not fall simply because the warrant is challenged. Therefore, please use actual signposts as your primary method of organizing your speeches.

Oral Critiques/Disclosure - Unless the tournament specifically tells judges otherwise, I am willing disclose the winner of a round. If asked to give an oral critique, I will only address style issues. This means that I tend to give very unhelpful oral critiques and I usually sound like I'm nitpicking.

Evidence - I will not read your evidence before, during, or after the round, unless someone claims evidence was falsified. You are of course free to share evidence amongst yourselves, but I do not require it.

Timing - If your timer makes a loud, obnoxious sound when time is up, do not use it to time your opponent.