Davies,+Lyn

Updated 2/24

After judging at several tournaments recently I have changed a lot of my thinking in terms of what I will vote on.

I will listen to any argument. I have recently found myself being persuaded by arguments and debate styles that a year ago I would have said were outside the boundary of policy debate.

That being said, if you want the ballot, I need a good role for it and I need clarity. If you are technically all over the flow or only giving me pieces of arguments don't be surprised if I can't fill in the blanks for you.


 * Link debate** is key in any round. Tell me where to apply your arguments and avoid generic links. Just because you read five links doesn't mean any of them is logical. I appreciate clear analysis and warrants.


 * Please be clear.** I've heard remarkably clear speed and very muddy debate at slower speeds. If I can't distinguish words and tags are not vocally highlighted, expect to loose what might be good arguments. I'm not interested in having arguments flashed so that I can debate the round for you on paper.


 * Counterplans:** I generally think that PIC's are a poor strategy unless there is some clear aspect of the Aff. that can be severed with overwhelming net benefit. I'll vote on PIC's if I am convinced the truth is on your side. I view perms as tests of competitiveness, not tests of mutual exclusivity in most cases. Philosophical competitiveness is fair game. If neg kicks a conditional counterplan and I determine aff had offense on the counterplan I'm likely to keep that offense in the round. Conditionality should not be a mechanism for kicking out of arguments you are loosing; it should only be used to remove arguments that have no net effect in the round.


 * Framework and Theory**: I've judged a lot of rounds where these are blurred together. I think of Framework as my rubric for evaluating the round and theory as any fairness argument. If you want theory to be an independent voter, be sure to distinguish it from other framework. Avoid silly probability * magnitude impact calc arguments. As a teacher of mathematics, I can't buy into this unless you can provide one empirical and parallel example where it has been true.


 * Politics:** Please don't run this as an obvious time waster. I'll listen to this argument, but if it is poorly linked then kicked it will work against you in my mind.


 * Narratives:** I am now a fan of these when they are run with clarity and clear method. Don't assume that I have the same knowledge as you do. Make your story accessible and compelling and you will have my full attention.


 * Kritiks:** I enjoy these if they are run with a lot of specificity, creativity and accessibility. Generic kritiks do nothing for me. Please don't use Kritiks as time wasters and avoid running other arguments that link into the kritik. I view multiple advocacy arguments as unconvincing ways to get around this. While it's true I may be looking for the best option, offering contradictory arguments and asking me to compartmentalize is not something I can do well.


 * Avoid arguments that disregard human value.** If I determine there is any element of your advocacy that indicates you are __knowingly__ exploiting, marginalizing or disregarding groups of human beings you will lose the ballot. An example is a recent argument calling for food deprivation to Cuba in order to avert increasing obesity rates in Cuba.

I am from a small program so I have no problem voting anyone up or down. I don't know you, your team, your coaches, your camp lab leaders, your friends or your enemies. This also means that I don't download arguments from wikis and read through them regularly. Don't assume I will extrapolate for you on arguments that you think are common place. Even if I can, I won't.