AMY FUGATE

Johnson County Community College # of Rds. on Topic: 1

Years Judging Team Topic Debate: 20

For the first time in 20 years, I have not been an active judge. The main

impact of this is lack of familiarity with arguments that at this point in

the year you may not feel you need to explain. I guess the good news is

that I am still around debaters and have heard discussions on a number of

cases ñ just not in rounds! My framework at the end of the round is

generally to weigh the benefits of the affirmative case versus the

disadvantages or weigh the affirmative plan & subsequent benefits versus

the negative counterplan and net benefits. Good debaters have the

ability to isolate these arguments particularly in the last two rebuttals.

Debaters who wish for me to leave this paradigm can certainly argue in

favor of that. However, please realize that if you choose to do this, you

explain fully your rationale for it and the impact this will have on the

decision making paradigm in the round.

Topicality: I believe topicality to be a jurisdictional issue and will

look at it first should it be extended throughout the round. If the

negative wants to win this argument, they should make comparisons between

the definitions and clearly define why this is a loss of ground, unfair,

violates a rule of the game, etc. I have never voted on topicality being

a reverse voting issue.

Counterplans: Conditionality/dispositionality of a counterplan is open to

debate, but generally I am not real susceptible to the "punish them for

this type of debate" arguments. Left without debate on these issues, I

generally believe a counterplan can be kicked but the negative should

beware of potential cross-applications from the counterplan. The type of

couterplan, i.e. plan inclusive, international, exception, are open to the

debate of the round. I do expect that there be a text of the counterplan

available at the time the counterplan is run.

Critiques/Kritiks:. I need an explanation of what impact the kritik has

either inside the round or outside the round to weigh against the

affirmative case.

Evidence: I am a firm believer that debaters have the ability to cut

excellent cards but also the ability to overtag so-so cards. I will

reward teams who look at the specifics of evidence and debate the actual

evidence in the round. If you are looking at an opponents card and the

text of the evidence may present a different view from the highlighted

section, please point it out. I will read evidence at the end of a round

if I need to refresh my memory or clarify an area of the debate. I tend

not to read cards at the request of debaters who say--"Its a great card

--read it at the end of the round" -- but who are not willing to expand on

the evidence within the round.

General Things: I enjoy watching debaters who seem to relish the

opportunity to match intellect, research, and speaking skills with another

team and have fun doing it. I dislike having to sit through a round where

debaters treat each other with little respect and where ad hominem attacks

replace reasoned argument. Your clarity is most important for my flowing

ability---if you can be clear and fast there is no problem. I will tell

you if I can't understand you, but if you choose to ignore the feedback, I

don't feel apologetic about missing arguments. I really like teams who

make use of C-X to point out flaws in evidence and/or reasoning and I get

very bored when it becomes a card and answer exchange. If tournament

scheduling allows, I will provide a post-round critique based on how I saw

the round. If you have a specific question about anything not addressed