University of North Texas

Director of Debate District: III, South Central

Years Coaching/Judging: 15

Tournaments Attended, 99/00: 4 Number of Rounds: 22

General Comments: I find it fairly difficult to generalize about any judging tendencies, in particular because it is self-descriptive and in part because it is inherently inaccurate. I have, in the past, characterized myself as a sort of policy-maker, given the unique nature of policy making in debate. I do not want it to be assumed that this is the only role that I can see myself in as a debate judge. I want to make it clear that I can be persuaded to don any articulated or described set of lenses in order to evaluate a debate. This year, I don=t think that I have voted affirmative or negative more often than not. This year, I have judged what seem to be a few less rounds on the topic than in past years, so I may or may not be as familiar with the arguments. You should also know that I have not judged in the second semester, so I may be a little behind in terms of familiarity with argumentative innovations in the spring.

That having been said, I do think that there are some strategic/stylistic elements that make up what I characterize as good debate. I appreciate 2NR/2AR meta-level conceptualizations of the round. I think that good debates have some degree of focus in the last two speeches, but I think that I am fairly strict on 2AR=s in terms of Anew@ arguments. To avoid my perception that some framing or argument is new, you should begin to describe the framing of the argument in the 2AC/1AR. I prefer cordial debates, although I do appreciate the gravity of debates at the national tournaments or the qualifiers. I think that many debaters do not use cross-examination to its potential, and I believe that the potential is significant in terms of assessing the quality of evidence, the assumptions of arguments, or the ramifications of arguments for the round as a whole. I will let you know if some particular stylistic concern is troubling to me, of if I cannot understand you.

Argument Perceptions: I am willing to evaluate arguments in a debate round from whatever perspective is advocated. I will evaluate affirmatives which operate on a pre-fiat level, argue from general principle, or that advocate decision rules/criteria that are different from the traditional cost-benefit model. I am willing to assess alternative methods of disproving affirmative claims, such as kritiks or exclusion counterplans. I have voted for and against all of these, as well as for and against the traditional plan vs. disadvantage/counterplan approach. It makes very little difference to me, it should be a strategic decision on your part as to what approach you take. Debate it out, provide support for your claims, answer the opposition=s arguments--you should be in pretty good shape. I stay fairly current on the literature, but the fact that I have read/heard something about a particular position should not influence my evaluative perceptions.

Good luck and have fun at your national tournament.

Back