Crowe,+Chris

__**Chris Crowe**__ University of Texas – San Antonio Westwood High School Sixth year judging college (Energy Production Topic 2012-13) 12th year judging high school (Transportation Infrastructure Topic 2012-13)

Some of my favorite judges as a debater were Sarah Holbrook, Jarrod Atchison, David Heidt, Adrienne Brovero, Adam Symonds and Jason Peterson. I try to judge like I perceive(d) they did/do. If you’re looking for a judge that will hurriedly search for the quickest reason for decision, I am not for you.

I actively think about the debate when I judge. I constantly think to myself “who is winning the debate at this point?” or “what would I do in this situation?” The evolution of the debate is very important to me, and while I often read evidence afterward, I try to let my understanding of which team was ahead in given parts of the debate inform my reading of the evidence. I also find that it helps me give constructive criticism as opposed to just mindlessly flowing your arguments and then trying to decode my flow two hours later.

**On Clarity:** “Debate is ultimately about communicating your ideas to a judge to persuade them to vote for you. If I cannot understand you, I will not be persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly. I will not say ‘clear.’ I will just ignore you without remorse, since the most basic goal of a debater is to be understood by the judge. This doesn’t apply if it’s not your fault, e.g., you’re too far away and I can’t hear you.” -Calum Matheson I’ve definitely reached “crotchety old man” status as it relates to rate of delivery. I can keep up with the best of ‘em, but I think at least 75% of debaters would be served well by slowing down just a hair. What ever happened to understanding the texts of cards as they are delivered?

**On Strategy:** "I'm ambivalent about the 'truth' of almost every argument, and I enjoy good debate no matter its substantive or ideological leaning. Unsurprisingly, I've seen both sides of the ideological spectrum debated superbly at times and miserably at other times, and I am far more concerned with judging whether or not you make your arguments well than where you fit along some pre-ordained spectrum of K---Policy. How I evaluate these debates depends entirely on how good you are, and has little to do with how leftist or right-wing you are. As utterly obvious as this is to me, somehow I think it gets lost in the mad dash for teams to stack their strike sheets with people they think are ideologically congruent with their preferences. But in case you're wondering, I went for everything as a debater." -Josh Branson

As with everything, specificity and hard work are the gold standard. I’m much more interested in your updated case hit than whether or not you can read consult congress blocks.

If you are trying to persuade me to take some “leap of faith” beyond reason and rationality in order to make my decision, I cannot help you. I’m sure there’s a comet for you to hitch a ride on soon, but I’m not tagging along.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**On Theory:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">“'Reject the argument not the team' is frequently enough for theory debates unrelated to conditionality. It is certainly enough when the voting issue claim is just 'it's a voter for fairness and education' - that is a claim without a warrant and it is unlikely I will vote on that claim even if it is dropped (the debate world where random voting issue prolif took over substantive debating is not one I would prefer to return to). But having said that, you can might get me to vote on theory if you have a well explained reason to reject the team.” <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-David Heidt

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I lean negative on most of the middle-of-the-road questions, but start leaning aff when contradictions arise and implicate strategy. That said, I’m not sure I’ve ever judged a high-quality theory debate despite considering myself a theory wonk as a debater. One time, my partner and I lost our theory expando (this thing we used to keep actual paper blocks in) and kept forgetting it. Well, a year or so went by and we were substantially better theory debaters. There is a lesson in there, somewhere.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**On Framework:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">“The framework debate has gotten pretty stale, but I understand the utility of it. If you are going to talk about framework please play defense. I see far too many debates where the policy team wins that the other side kills debate, but the K team wins that policy debate is bankrupt. If either side did just a bit to disprove the totality of these claims, they would likely win.” <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Charles Olney

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**Everything Else:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">"Even if...because...: Yeah, I ripped this idea off from Becky Galentine, I know, but I have yet to hear a more effective tool for rebuttals. You aren't winning everything. So it would behoove you to protect yourself by indicating why you still win even if your opponent should win some of their important arguments." <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Adam Symonds

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Evidence comparison > evidence reading. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Dropped arguments are only as good as originally conveyed. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Prep time stops when you save your speech, which you should announce. Don't abuse transfer time. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-I don’t have a particularly good method for speaker points. Some arbitrary combination of aesthetics, strategy and style. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-I am unlikely to determine that something outweighs topicality. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-The link determines the direction of the link.