Pritchard,+Alex

Judging preferences for Alex Pritchard Westwood High School

Forgive the cryptic nature of this information. This precedes the 2010 TOC tournament although very little has changed in my judging “preferences” over the years. I have not judged a single round on this topic since summer debate institutes. This form seems most useful for you to prefer or not prefer me so allow me to briefly tell you what I “prefer” in a policy debate round and then you decide if you want to prefer me. Of course, it always acceptable to ask me prior to the round about my preferences as long as your questions are reasonably specific. I will promise to always do the best I can and to always be impartial. Absent debate I will always default to voting for the net affirmative advantages compared to the net disadvantages in a debate.


 * 1) I prefer a 1AC that is understandable and easy to flow. Since I rarely hear more than two or three pieces of evidence ever cross applied or even mentioned later in the debate it strikes me odd that you want me to flow so much evidence in the 1AC never to be used again.
 * 2) Debating topicality in front of me is quite easy. I “prefer” a case list and a debate by analogy or example as to what provides the better limit. I do not prefer debates requiring me to diagram a sentence or to sort through poorly warranted “standards”.
 * 3) I prefer a counterplan/net benefit debate or a case/DA debate to almost any other option regarding negative strategy. I usually enjoy a good economy debate over any other specific argument. I prefer a few well developed shells in the 1NC rather than arguments that are noticeably missing internal links. My least favorite debate is a generic kritik debate usually named after a “person” rather than an argument. I think kritiks need to have an alternative that I can imagine…keeping in mind I have little imagination when it comes to things like “reject”. The more vague the alternative the more likely I will vote for the “perm”.
 * 4) The debate is always more enjoyable for me when both teams are talking about the plan. In reality I probably tend to vote for the team that best characterizes the plan in either in a positive or negative light. It’s that simple.
 * 5) I would always prefer a debate about substance rather than theory. Absent the specific debate, I “prefer” single actor counterplans to multilateral actor counterplans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then “likely” the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate. I do believe in argument responsibility.
 * 6) I would qualify in almost every respect as “old school”. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross examination. I strongly do not prefer “tag team cross examination”. Debate is about advocacy and oppositional arguments. I find “group think” in cross ex would be better for small group discussion than an advocacy format. I think objectionable language rarely provides a good warrant and swearing or other objectionable language better suited outside the debate round. Whatever you think is your optimal speed you might want to cut back by 10-20% for me. That allows for small lapses in your clarity or my sleeping. It would always be better for you to default to over explaining (as I will let you know you can proceed) rather than under explaining.
 * 7) If you want me to call for evidence it must be red flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.