Judging Philosophy for Ashley G. Bowser:

  1. My role is a judge is just to sit back and watch the debate happen. If a debater can advocate an argument and provide sufficient reason why that argument should warrant my ballot, then I will do just that. I am not sure that any particular paradigm is something that I want to commit to, however, I will say that if a debater does not tell me how to evaluate the round, then I will default to evaluating procedural issues first.
  2. Affirmative Approaches: The affirmative must provide some justification for my ballot whether that is the traditional plan format or some other non-traditional stuff. There are no affirmative arguments that I particular like or dislike.
  3. Negative Approaches: Again, the negative must provide some justification for my ballot with any variety of available negative arguments. I don’t really care what the negative does, but I am particularly fond of a good procedural argument.
  4. Presumption: Presumption lies with the negative unless they run a counter-plan or arguments are made to the contrary. It is a viable option for the negative if they eliminate solvency to try for a negative ballot that way which will be persuasive unless the affirmative has turns on a disad or something.
  5. Topicality: If the affirmative loses this issue, then they lose the debate (unless the affirmative makes compelling arguments to the contrary). A good topicality will have some standards happening. Please develop the argument if you are going to run it. RVI’s are fine if they make sense. Oh yeah, I will vote on potential abuse (who cares about that in round stuff).
  6. Evidence: Evidence is pretty good stuff to have, but those things call analytics are important too. Citations can be in any form you want, but if you want your speaker points to increase, then you should give a more complete citation. I will read evidence after the round if I feel it is crucial to make a competent decision. If you challenge the context or accuracy of the evidence, you better have the real thing (b/c there ain’t nothing like it).
  7. Cross-Examination: It is to clarify and to set up arguments. Yes, CX is binding (so that means, you had better not lie). No, I don’t flow CX, does anybody? Tag-team CX is just fine (just be sure you tag your partner).
  8. Style and Delivery: You should be telling a story in the last two rebuttals which does not mean that you should not go fast. Rapid rates are just fine. I can handle any speed you have, but start out slower so I can get used to the pitch of your voice. If you break the sound barrier, then you are going too fast. I like humor a lot!!!!!!!!!
  9. Other: Love theory arguments if they are well-developed. Critiques are fine if you present the argument in an understandable manner. Don’t go for too much in the 2NR. I suppose impact comparison in the last rebuttals might be nice.

    Back