Theriot,+Christine

Background: I have judged LD, PF, & CX debate as well as Student Congress in Florida and (south) Louisiana. I debated ONLY LD format in 2004-2008 and also extended engagement in Extemp & Oratory categories at NFL level.

Overall Philosophy: In debates, I think it’s all about structural necessities of getting your point best across – solid contingency statements, a discussion of what the other team said or should have said and didn’t, and what factors I should use to decide which team to vote for. If you are doing these things, you are in good shape.

Speed: I loathe overly rapid speaking. I don’t find it easier to get a multitude of points across when it’s too much for me to take in auditorily. I appreciate technique in speaking and feeling the presence of your case – mainly in that passion is important (as well as careful presentation & clearly articulating).

Feedback: I’m a very focused judge, to put it lightly. I am not very discerning in my expressions, and can be difficult to read for facial feedback. I am typically vigorously taking notes and will gravitate visually between debaters. After final rounds, I’m more apt to provide feedback than during the debate.

Speaker points: My award of speaker points is completely and entirely separate from any substantive aspect of the debate. I award speaks based on how well you speak, nothing more. Therefore, low point wins are not uncommon in my rounds.

Aesthetics: I expect professional attire and a general respect for presentation. I view debate as a format for bringing relevant matters to attention, and should be reminiscent of an important performance that informs and dictates impact.

Kritiks and Theory: I am open to all critical arguments within reason, I just ask that you please just have a framing mechanism or tell me how the K functions in relation to the other argument.

Standards: I will not tolerate any abuse, especially in CX.

Cards/Evidence: I base my decision mainly on concrete well-researched evidence and a little less on philosophical arguments unless it’s highly necessary to present this as a contention.

Roadmaps: They’re fine, I like them.

Cross Examination: Tact is more influential to me than wit.

New arguments: I am strict about not accepting new arguments in rebuttals.