2000 Frank Harrison, Trinity University
NDT JUDGE PHILOSOPHY FORM
judged at 5 tournaments prior to Districts
I believe my function is to determine which team has presented and defended the better public policy option. This has three important consequences: (1) I will not put the arguments together and resolve them for myself in a way the debaters have not done. As a result, the team with the better "cards" and even greater "truth" on their side may loose because they failed to utilize their superior resources to create a cohesive argument whereas the team with less "knowledge and truth" has done so. (2) An argument with no policy implications, as was true of the few "kritiks" I have heard over the years, will be disregarded. (3) An affirmative that does not present a plan, or maintains "the resolution is our plan," has failed their prima facie burden and will loose automatically if the negative makes that claim.
Topicality is a voting issue. I cannot be persuaded to the contrary. The affirmative must be within the language of the resolution, and field contextual definitions are the best way to establish what that language means. "Ground" arguments can be helpful in resolving close definitional disputes, but the fact that a case "divides ground fairly" or "has been run all year" doesn't make it topical.
Topical counterplans are a fact of life and I've learned to live with them. I am, however, still open to the claim that they warrant the resolution and VERY open to claims of particular abuse ESPECIALLY with respect to "plan inclusive," "time frame" and minor exclusion counterplans. But if you are going to claim abuse you need to tell me what to do because of it and why: should I disregard the counterplan, vote affirmative because of the resolutional warrant, etc
? Please don't just "blip it out"; this is an argument that needs analysis and development.I will vote on Presumption if there is no other way to resolve the round. But, in all my years in policy debate, I do not believe I have ever done so.
I will read cards after the round, but as few as possible and not if they were incomprehensible when first read.
Style
• Successful debate has become far more comprehensible in recent years. Regrettably, exceptions remain. And when a judge yells "dearer," especially more than once, and debaters ignore the warning, they do so at great peril. I have voted on incomprehensibility in the past, and I don't want to have to do it again. I cannot evaluate unexplained claims, e.g. "that's taken out by the Smith card" (HOW?) or "that's a turn" (WHY?), or arguments expressed in little known acronyms.You can assume that I am generally well informed about public issues, and will take "judicial notice" of commonly known facts. There is no need to "read a card" to establish that Bill Clinton is President of the United States or that Iran is a theocracy. Similarly, I will not accept a disputed claim that flies in the face of common knowledge--such as one made to me this year that Congress can enact a law without "any reference to the President." But you cannot reasonably assume that I know as much about your positions as you do. So EXPLAIN what you mean. The team that does that better will probably win the round.
My best advice to debaters is to think, not just read blocks reactively, make "real world" public Policy arguments. and speak in a manner that can be understood by an attentive listener.